WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH CONSERVATISM
Foundational Truths
The foundation of conservatism is belief in our Creator God, from whom we receive both unalienable rights and fundamental responsibilities. Conservatives seek to “conserve” the form of government given to us by our Founders: a government whose authority derives from “truths” that are “self-evident” because they reflect the logic and order of “Nature’s God.” (Source: Declaration of Independence)
God created human beings “in His image” as male and female complementary halves of one whole and designed human civilization to rest upon the foundation of the natural family, protected by the covenant of marriage. (Sources: Gen 1:27; Allan Carlson, Paul Mero, The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty, 2008; Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the Natural Law, 1990)
Both church and state have agreed throughout the centuries that a society based upon the natural family, protected by the institution of marriage, is necessary for civilization to thrive and that the worst enemy of the family is permissive social attitudes about sexuality. (Sources: Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010; J.D. Unwin, Sex and Culture, 1934).
The homosexuality-affirming movement robs children of their inherent, inalienable, and self-evident right to be raised whenever possible by their biological parents. Government-sanction of homosexual unions constitutes the radical endorsement of the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless children. (Source: www.kidsrightscount.org.au)
Marriage-based society discourages all sexual conduct outside of marriage. Non-marital sex results in family breakdown and disease, which ultimately results in social disintegration. In addition, homosexual normalization requires the acceptance of sexual permissiveness as a matter of public policy with predictable harmful consequences that are now evident throughout our culture. (Source: Leviticus 18:1-29; Maggie Gallagher, “Does Sex Make Babies,” www.marriagedebate.com)
Since the 1960s when America traded sexual conservatism for sexual permissiveness, the fiscal and human costs have been astronomical: (“Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2465, 9/17/2010)
While the majority of people indulging in sexual promiscuity today are not homosexual, the primary advocates of sexual permissiveness as a social policy since the late 1940s have been the political activists of the homosexual movement. (Dr. Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, 1998)
The conservative movement is salted throughout with former homosexuals who share our values and need our help to overcome the intense discrimination and often vicious hatred they face from our mutual opponents. We must remember that ex-“gays” have played a role in advancing our values in society since the time of Christ (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Lies Used to Normalize Homosexuality
The campaign to legitimize homosexuality in our society is based on lies that are designed to manipulate public opinion and relies upon fraudulent science and suppression of opposing views. (Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, “The Trojan Couch: How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science,” www.NARTH.com)
It is a lie to assert that the incidence of homosexuality is unaffected by influences from culture, family, peer socialization, and incremental choices (Brad Harrub, Ph.D.,Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D., “This is the Way God Made Me: A Scientific Examination of Homosexuality and the ‘Gay Gene,’” www.trueorigins.org, see also www.NARTH.com, www.exodusinternational.org)
It is a lie that homosexual conduct is not a choice. Although same-sex attraction may be involuntary, one’s response to it is completely voluntary. All sex is voluntary except rape. Further, all people have the obligation to resist temptations, no matter how strong, that lead to personal and social harms.
It is a lie that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. We are all heterosexuals by definition, but each of us has the choice to indulge in any number of types of sexual behavior that deviate from the way we are made. That’s why it is called “sexual deviance.” (Dr. Charles King, "The Meaning of Normal." Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 18, 493-501)
It is a lie that homosexuality is equivalent to race or skin color. General Colin Powell said it best: “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of all behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.” (Colin Powell, My American Journey, 1995, p. 533)
It is a lie that disapproval of voluntary homosexual acts is equivalent to racism. The specious equating of moral disapproval with racism is based on the erroneous and baseless comparison of homosexuality to race.
It is a lie that opposing homosexuality equals hate. The accusation of hate is a cynical tactic designed to intimidate conservatives from speaking the truth about a form of conduct that spreads disease and is linked to numerous physical and psychological disorders. We all have a stake in this issue, and most of us care about homosexuals as people even while opposing their actions, just as we do with alcoholics, bulimics and others who suffer from behavioral disorders. (Dr. Scott Lively, Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda, 2009, Introduction)
It is a lie that homosexual parenting is harmless to children. (“Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids,” AOL News, October 17, 2010)
It is a lie that homosexuality is not linked to pedophilia. (Steve Baldwin, “Childhood Molestation and the Homosexual Movement, “Regent University Law Review, Vol. 14:267)
It is a lie that AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease. "While CDC estimates that MSM [males who have sex with males] account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men)." (Source: www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf)
It is a lie that “gay” youth suicide can only be prevented by forcing the rest of society to affirm homosexual conduct. (“Cornell professor: Gay suicide rates not abnormal,” www.studentfreepress.net)
It is a lie that homosexuals are a powerless victim group that needs vast public resources to protect it from its “enemies.” (“The Growing Power of the Gay Rights Movement,” The Atlantic, 12/14/2010)
It is a lie that the acceptance of homosexuality brings harmony and peace to the individual homosexual. (www.exodusinternational.org/resources/real-stories/) ###
The purpose of this Pro-Family Precis is to equip and unify conservatives by defining the key elements of the holistic pro-family worldview.
For space considerations, cited sources are representative only. For freedom of distribution this document is not copyrighted.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Murdering Uganda
By Dr. Scott Lively.
Uganda is being murdered. The nation once called “The Pearl of Africa” by Winston Churchill, a lush and beautiful country as fertile as the Nile Delta. It is the nation that retained its self-rule through centuries of African colonialism, the society that survived even the atrocities of the cannibal cultist Idi Amin, the culture that has been thriving in Christian revival for over a dozen years.
This great and honorable nation, alone in Africa to have all but conquered the scourge of AIDS through abstinence - and whose First Lady led a holy gathering of thousands of believers on the eve of the millennium, dedicating her homeland “to Jesus Christ for a thousand years” - this Uganda, a shining light in the Dark Continent, is being murdered.
The murderers are the lavender Marxists, the now-global network of sexual revolutionaries bent on remaking the entire world in their own perverted image, whose juggernaut has toppled even once mighty Britain, crushing under their lavender boots after eight centuries the symbol of its Christian power: the Magna Charta, whose first principle had proclaimed “The English church must be free!” These revolutionists of Sodom, who march triumphantly through all the major cities of the western world to flaunt their defeat of moral law, and who hold both Hollywood and the heart of America’s president in their iron grip: These very same zealots have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda.
Uganda is the only country in the world with a national holiday commemorating its rejection of sexual perversion. Every June 3 it honors the 22 young men and boys who were tortured and roasted alive in 1886 by homosexual King Mwanga, because they refused to submit to sodomy. Is it any wonder, then, that Uganda has reacted violently against the army of agitators, led by George Soros, who now seek to re-homosexualize Ugandan culture?
It is as if the militant ranks of “Code Pink” were transported back to 1890s America to agitate for “sexual freedom.” Our great grandparents would not have countenanced this. There would have been violence, as there has now been in Uganda. And that is, of course, the strategy: the agents provocateur are goading unsophisticated natives into over-reacting, while the “gay” media lie in wait to catch the images and spin the propaganda that is even now poisoning the gullible against the Ugandans.
Ugandan homosexual activist David Kato was recently beaten to death with a hammer, a horrific crime. These very media have rushed eagerly to judge this a hate crime and to blame those, like me, who have spoken against homosexuality in Uganda. It is the central (but patently false) narrative of the left that all criticism of homosexuality leads inevitably to violence and murder. Yet the killer has now been caught and confessed that he was a live-in male prostitute who murdered Kato for failing to pay him as promised. The “gay” hate-narrative has failed, the Ugandan rejection of “gay” culture has been vindicated, and the finger-pointing media have pulled quietly back into the shadows - for now.
There is indeed evil in Uganda today, but it is not the reaction of Christian and Moslem citizens to the rape of their culture. It is the pink-gloved hand of western powers that are cutting the throat of Africa’s most God-fearing country, and one of the world‘s most promising Christian democracies.
Uganda is being murdered. The nation once called “The Pearl of Africa” by Winston Churchill, a lush and beautiful country as fertile as the Nile Delta. It is the nation that retained its self-rule through centuries of African colonialism, the society that survived even the atrocities of the cannibal cultist Idi Amin, the culture that has been thriving in Christian revival for over a dozen years.
This great and honorable nation, alone in Africa to have all but conquered the scourge of AIDS through abstinence - and whose First Lady led a holy gathering of thousands of believers on the eve of the millennium, dedicating her homeland “to Jesus Christ for a thousand years” - this Uganda, a shining light in the Dark Continent, is being murdered.
The murderers are the lavender Marxists, the now-global network of sexual revolutionaries bent on remaking the entire world in their own perverted image, whose juggernaut has toppled even once mighty Britain, crushing under their lavender boots after eight centuries the symbol of its Christian power: the Magna Charta, whose first principle had proclaimed “The English church must be free!” These revolutionists of Sodom, who march triumphantly through all the major cities of the western world to flaunt their defeat of moral law, and who hold both Hollywood and the heart of America’s president in their iron grip: These very same zealots have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda.
Uganda is the only country in the world with a national holiday commemorating its rejection of sexual perversion. Every June 3 it honors the 22 young men and boys who were tortured and roasted alive in 1886 by homosexual King Mwanga, because they refused to submit to sodomy. Is it any wonder, then, that Uganda has reacted violently against the army of agitators, led by George Soros, who now seek to re-homosexualize Ugandan culture?
It is as if the militant ranks of “Code Pink” were transported back to 1890s America to agitate for “sexual freedom.” Our great grandparents would not have countenanced this. There would have been violence, as there has now been in Uganda. And that is, of course, the strategy: the agents provocateur are goading unsophisticated natives into over-reacting, while the “gay” media lie in wait to catch the images and spin the propaganda that is even now poisoning the gullible against the Ugandans.
Ugandan homosexual activist David Kato was recently beaten to death with a hammer, a horrific crime. These very media have rushed eagerly to judge this a hate crime and to blame those, like me, who have spoken against homosexuality in Uganda. It is the central (but patently false) narrative of the left that all criticism of homosexuality leads inevitably to violence and murder. Yet the killer has now been caught and confessed that he was a live-in male prostitute who murdered Kato for failing to pay him as promised. The “gay” hate-narrative has failed, the Ugandan rejection of “gay” culture has been vindicated, and the finger-pointing media have pulled quietly back into the shadows - for now.
There is indeed evil in Uganda today, but it is not the reaction of Christian and Moslem citizens to the rape of their culture. It is the pink-gloved hand of western powers that are cutting the throat of Africa’s most God-fearing country, and one of the world‘s most promising Christian democracies.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Wikileaks “Gay” Connection
By Dr. Scott Lively
If you’re looking for someone to blame for the Wikileaks scandal, a good candidate would be President Bill Clinton. He was the one who, in 1995, signed an Executive Order removing “sexual orientation” as a grounds for denying someone a security clearance. Had that policy never been revoked, homosexual soldier Bradley Manning would never have had access to our national secrets and could not have leaked them. According to news reports, Manning decided to turn traitor after a fight with his boyfriend, which somehow motivated him to send hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to Wikileaks leader Julian Assange, who has also been alleged by some to be “gay.”
As to motive, the Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military." (How common an attitude is that among “gays” and lesbians do you suppose, when their very identity as a political movement is defined by the rhetoric of “victimization?” )
So why were homosexuals denied security clearance in the first place? A series of Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" and that homosexuals are "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to emotional instability and moral weakness. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10/1/2001).
However, the reasons go much deeper into western history. According to Samuel Igra in Germany’s National Vice, the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a clique of homosexuals had gained Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser engulfed the nation in scandal from 1907 to 1914 through a series of very public criminal trials.
According to Igra it grew so severe that Germany chose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote “Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the county.” Whether or not this was the true cause of The Great War is immaterial. It is enough that it caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.
And in World War II, also according to Igra, the most notorious of the traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals: Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England, Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor.”
Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality noted
“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country‘”…
“Another one of its members, Sir Anthony Blunt, a member of the British Intelligence [and a notorious homosexual], became a traitor and breached security, thereby causing many to die. He regularly passed highly classified information on to a nation which would become the primary foe of the free world: the Soviet Union. He once remarked to an intelligence colleague near the end of World War II, ‘it has given me great pleasure to have been able to turn over the names of every MI-5 officer to the Russians.’”
A concise summary of the problem with inviting homosexuals into highly confidential circles is drawn from the memoirs of Police Commissioner Hans von Tresckow, who headed the equivalent of the Berlin “vice squad” from 1905 to 1919:
“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one's fellow-men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”
It was true then and it is true today. Just ask Bradley Manning.
###
Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney and President of Defend the Family International. The facts in this editorial are documented in his book The Poisoned Stream which is published in PDF form at www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/poisonedstream/poisonedstream.pdf
If you’re looking for someone to blame for the Wikileaks scandal, a good candidate would be President Bill Clinton. He was the one who, in 1995, signed an Executive Order removing “sexual orientation” as a grounds for denying someone a security clearance. Had that policy never been revoked, homosexual soldier Bradley Manning would never have had access to our national secrets and could not have leaked them. According to news reports, Manning decided to turn traitor after a fight with his boyfriend, which somehow motivated him to send hundreds of thousands of confidential documents to Wikileaks leader Julian Assange, who has also been alleged by some to be “gay.”
As to motive, the Montreal Gazette reported that "Manning could 'identify' with Iraqis and Afghans who he believed had suffered as a result of U.S. policies, especially because he himself was a "a member of a minority" treated unfairly by the military." (How common an attitude is that among “gays” and lesbians do you suppose, when their very identity as a political movement is defined by the rhetoric of “victimization?” )
So why were homosexuals denied security clearance in the first place? A series of Senate committee reports from the 1950s concluded that "moral perverts are bad national security risks ... because of their susceptibility to blackmail" and that homosexuals are "vulnerable to interrogation by a skilled questioner" due to emotional instability and moral weakness. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10/1/2001).
However, the reasons go much deeper into western history. According to Samuel Igra in Germany’s National Vice, the outbreak of World War I was a direct consequence of homosexual intrigues in the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Revelations that a clique of homosexuals had gained Rasputin-like control of the Kaiser engulfed the nation in scandal from 1907 to 1914 through a series of very public criminal trials.
According to Igra it grew so severe that Germany chose war as the only way to resolve it’s domestic crisis. He cites, among other sources, The Diary of Count Robert Zedlitz-Truetzschler, Lord Chamberlain at the Court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who wrote “Yesterday while hunting at Springe the Crown Prince had a long conversation with General von Moltke, the Chief of the General Staff, about the political situation (the internal political situation, he means) and committed himself to the opinion that only war can clear up the confused situation of the county.” Whether or not this was the true cause of The Great War is immaterial. It is enough that it caused so great a national crisis that war was contemplated as a solution.
And in World War II, also according to Igra, the most notorious of the traitors who sided with the Nazi fascists against their own governments were all homosexuals: Guy Burgess and John Macnamara in England, Edouard Pfeiffer and Jacques Doriot in France. Leon Degrelle in Belgium. Artur Seyss-Inquart in Austria, and in Norway it was the infamous Vidkum Quisling, whose surname is even to this day synonymous with “traitor.”
Colonel Ron Ray in his 1993 book Military Necessity and Homosexuality noted
“Even if homosexuals are not ‘turned’ by foreign agents, evidence exists that homosexuals, as a group or subculture, can and do turn against their country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. This fact is illustrated by a well known group of preeminent writers, thinkers, artists and high social figures known as Bloomsburys who began to reform English tastes before the second world war. That period, termed modernity, saw the supplanting of the fixed moral norms with another ethos. The key to understanding modernity and Bloomsbury is sodomy: Bloomsburys wanted to ‘live as they wanted to live.’ Along with their homosexuality they developed an amoral, irreligious attitude and were unpatriotic as well. E.M. Forster, a member of the Bloomsbury, was quoted as saying, ‘If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country‘”…
“Another one of its members, Sir Anthony Blunt, a member of the British Intelligence [and a notorious homosexual], became a traitor and breached security, thereby causing many to die. He regularly passed highly classified information on to a nation which would become the primary foe of the free world: the Soviet Union. He once remarked to an intelligence colleague near the end of World War II, ‘it has given me great pleasure to have been able to turn over the names of every MI-5 officer to the Russians.’”
A concise summary of the problem with inviting homosexuals into highly confidential circles is drawn from the memoirs of Police Commissioner Hans von Tresckow, who headed the equivalent of the Berlin “vice squad” from 1905 to 1919:
“[I]t is not the sense of duty towards one's fellow-men or the nation that forms the rule of conduct for homosexualists; but in every turn of life and in all their striving they think only of the good or harm they may do to their own clique of friends.”
It was true then and it is true today. Just ask Bradley Manning.
###
Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney and President of Defend the Family International. The facts in this editorial are documented in his book The Poisoned Stream which is published in PDF form at www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/poisonedstream/poisonedstream.pdf
Thursday, November 11, 2010
WILL THE TEA PARTY STOP THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA?
By Dr. Scott Lively
It looks as if the Tea Party might have saved America from the socialists, but it‘s too soon to tell if it has saved us from the homosexualists. The election results were very encouraging relative to the conservative slate of issues as a whole, but only slightly encouraging regarding the “gay” agenda.
Most hopeful was the removal of three Iowa Supreme Court judges who were responsible for creating “gay” marriage in that state. Although their corrupt ruling stands, and legislative action will be required to reverse it (a distinct possibility in the current political climate), this was nevertheless a major victory for the pro-family movement. Leftist judicial activism has been the “gays‘” ace-in-the-hole all across the nation, but now the spectre of voter backlash will likely influence future decisions by judges. . In Maine, 22 state legislators who had voted for “gay” marriage were also removed from office and replaced with pro-family Republicans.
Next most hopeful was the dramatic shift in power from pro-abortion to pro-life forces in both the national and state-level offices. While (disturbingly) not every pro-life politician is necessarily pro-family, most of them are, and we can expect to see greater resistance to pro-”gay” initiatives and policies at every level of government, even if it may be too soon to expect pro-active pro-family policies to be advanced. Keep an eye on Kansas, especially, which has in recent years become ground-zero in pro-life efforts to shut down the abortion industry, and has just experienced a nearly complete shift of power into the hands of pro-lifers.
Here’s an excerpt from Jack Cashill’s editorial “Rinos on the Run” at World Net Daily:
“Coming into the election, Democrats held the office of Kansas governor, secretary of state, lieutenant governor and attorney general. In Johnson County, an affluent Kansas City suburb, Democrats held the congressional seat and six seats in the state house. At the end of the night, of all the above, Democrats had retained one seat in the Kansas state house [with high margins of victory up to 70% for the R‘s]. “
In Tennessee, the pro-lifers enjoyed a nearly clean sweep in both state houses and gained a new pro-life governor as well. Life Site News, quotes a statement from Congressman Chris Smith on pro-life changes to Congress where voters “replaced 38 pro-abortion Members with pro-life Members and replaced 14 unreliable Members with reliable pro-life Representatives. Of the 93 Members of the Freshman Class at least 77 are committed to defending the unborn. January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever.”
Also beneficial to conservatives (in my view) was the retention of power by the Democrats in California, and Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate. While Reid’s defeat would have been a great symbolic victory, it is better that he (especially in his damaged condition) remains in place to provide a clear contrast to the conservatives over the next two years. If Nancy Pelosi prevails in her attempt to retaining power on the Dem side in the House, she will serve this end even more effectively.
By retaining the Senate in the control of his own party, Obama will have to own a substantial part of the blame for the gridlock that is likely to occur and will have much less opportunity to “pull a Clinton” by re-branding himself as a moderate (even if he was inclined to do so, which I strongly doubt). His leftist voter base has actually been strengthened by the political demise of so many “moderates” and they will turn the heat up, not down on Obama to push their agenda, with the willing cooperation of Pelosi and, to a lesser extent, Reid.
I predict that President Obama, given his narcissistic tendencies and sincere believe in socialist ideology, will actually move left and begin to try to persuade the general public to the rest of his leftist views in the same manner that he “sold” health care, remaining incapable of hearing public disagreement but only the yea-sayers of his progressive base.
California, already $140-160 billion in the red due to liberal policies, may be the most important element of the national mix. Its hope of a federal bailout has been (I should hope) firmly dashed by the change in U.S. House leadership, which means California far left politicians now own lock, stock and barrel, the fiscal and moral debacle that the Golden State has produced. “Governor Moonbeam” is back at the wheel, and the “gay” dominated, overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled legislature has just won through ballot initiative the power to pass state budgets by simple majority vote, doing away with the 2/3 majority requirement that had previously tied their hands.
There remains a 2/3 requirement for tax and fee increases but the Democrats are just short of a super-majority in both chambers of the legislature, and Republican legislators, under intense pressure to raise revenues, will not be able to invoke the Tea Party revolution as justification for intransigence since the movement was soundly defeated in their state.
Watch California pull a Massachusetts and jack already astronomical state fees and taxes through the roof, creating a fleeing stampede of businesses and wealthy individuals to other states, further exacerbating the imbalance of givers to takers and speeding the spiral of decline. How does this impact the pro-family issue? I think the entire leftist slate of issues will be showcased in failure as one package over the next few years as California becomes a cautionary tale to the entire world. (Heads up, conservative media!)
The homosexual movement did suffer some setbacks in the election beyond the firing of the Iowa judges. Staunch pro-homosexual legislators Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania were unseated, for example, but in Rhode Island David Cicilline, was elected as the fourth openly “gay” member of the U.S. House, joining fellow Democrats Jared Polis of Colorado, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Given last Tuesday’s changes, the House may be the least dangerous place for these radicals to reside, and their hopes of achieving policy victories are greatly dimmed on several issues, most especially the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (which outgoing Representative Murphy had volunteered to spearhead according to CNS News).
Considering the tidal wave that the election represented, however, very little of the homosexual agenda was eliminated from the cultural landscape. Nowhere but Iowa (to my knowledge) was the “gay” agenda prominent in any campaign, except for Carl Paladino’s unsuccessful race against Andrew Cuomo in (despite a rightward shift this election) still very liberal New York State. And the pro-family gains we’ve looked at in this article are not policy gains, but personnel ones.
The Paladino situation is instructive as to the reason the homosexuals have emerged largely unscathed (so far) from the cultural backlash. In a speech to Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Paladino said "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option -- it isn't." An undelivered but publicly released portion of his written speech also stated "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual" and being homosexual "is not how God created us." These perfectly reasonable comments kick-started the homosexualist “outrage machine” and within just a few hours Paladino was being pummeled in the local and national media as if he had denied the Holocaust or called President Obama the “n-word.”
He then made the mistake that killed his credibility as a candidate. He completely reversed himself on the issue and in an interview on the Today Show, insisted that he was not only not “anti-gay” but that he would "absolutely" recruit gays to work in his administration. "You name it. Wherever their expertise may be, we'll put them in our government." He was tried by fire and consumed.
Having been on the receiving end of similar media histrionics, I know it is very hard to resist the urge to cut and run from the wall of flames that appears ready to consume you. There are no greater masters of psychological intimidation than the sorcerer-journalists of the Fourth Estate. My personal hair-thin victory in standing fast (and subsequent marginalization) is also an object lesson that one cannot emerge unsinged from the inferno. However, standing fast on the truth and facts of the pro-family position is the only way to stop the homosexual juggernaut and restore a God-honoring family-centered society.
Can we yet do it? Two things could tip the balance in our favor. First, a campaign by pro-family activist leaders to train Tea Party activists in the fundamentals of the pro-family perspective. We need a very concise, professionally-prepared primer for leaders on the facts and logic of why every thinking person should oppose the legitimization of homosexuality in society, as well as a single page of documented bullet points for a general audience that outline our case. These should be distributed by the hundreds of thousands in a cooperative campaign, sent by all of the pro-family organizations to their member lists, with instructions to hand-deliver and explain them to Tea Party activists and candidates.
This is not to suggest that activists and candidates should lead with the “gay” issue in the current cultural climate in which several elements of the homosexual agenda have gained majority support, but whenever the subject is raised, clear articulation of pro-family reasoning as an implicit premise of conservative logic could undo years of unchallenged propaganda by the homosexualists.
The second thing is to urge the Tea Party to expand the scope of its reform efforts to the media. Now that Tea Partiers have experienced media bias first hand, and seen its destructive effect in political contests, that shouldn’t be a hard sell. With so much of the so-called main stream media on the ropes financially there has never been a better time to organize business people and other advertisers to demand long-needed changes in media companies, such as a fair representation of conservatives in decision-making and journalistic positions, and enforceable public standards for journalistic integrity on controversial issues. It’s in all of our best interests for this to occur.
At present there are almost no champions of the pro-family position in public life willing to take any firmer stand than “marriage should be one man and one woman,” and even that opinion is frequently offered with apologies and dissembling. There are, shamefully, very few people in the country today who can articulate our views cogently and unapologetically, and fewer still who are willing to try, given the power of the media to punish them for it.
And this is why it remains an open question as to whether the Tea Party will save us from the homosexualists. We can improve our prospects, but only if we act quickly to make our common interests a component of their reform agenda in the next two years.
Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney and President of Defend the Family International, which equips pro-family advocates around the world to promote and defend the natural family, marriage and family values. He is also the author of Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda, which may be downloaded in PDF format without charge at www.defendthefamily.com.
This article may be freely republished and distributed with attribution.
It looks as if the Tea Party might have saved America from the socialists, but it‘s too soon to tell if it has saved us from the homosexualists. The election results were very encouraging relative to the conservative slate of issues as a whole, but only slightly encouraging regarding the “gay” agenda.
Most hopeful was the removal of three Iowa Supreme Court judges who were responsible for creating “gay” marriage in that state. Although their corrupt ruling stands, and legislative action will be required to reverse it (a distinct possibility in the current political climate), this was nevertheless a major victory for the pro-family movement. Leftist judicial activism has been the “gays‘” ace-in-the-hole all across the nation, but now the spectre of voter backlash will likely influence future decisions by judges. . In Maine, 22 state legislators who had voted for “gay” marriage were also removed from office and replaced with pro-family Republicans.
Next most hopeful was the dramatic shift in power from pro-abortion to pro-life forces in both the national and state-level offices. While (disturbingly) not every pro-life politician is necessarily pro-family, most of them are, and we can expect to see greater resistance to pro-”gay” initiatives and policies at every level of government, even if it may be too soon to expect pro-active pro-family policies to be advanced. Keep an eye on Kansas, especially, which has in recent years become ground-zero in pro-life efforts to shut down the abortion industry, and has just experienced a nearly complete shift of power into the hands of pro-lifers.
Here’s an excerpt from Jack Cashill’s editorial “Rinos on the Run” at World Net Daily:
“Coming into the election, Democrats held the office of Kansas governor, secretary of state, lieutenant governor and attorney general. In Johnson County, an affluent Kansas City suburb, Democrats held the congressional seat and six seats in the state house. At the end of the night, of all the above, Democrats had retained one seat in the Kansas state house [with high margins of victory up to 70% for the R‘s]. “
In Tennessee, the pro-lifers enjoyed a nearly clean sweep in both state houses and gained a new pro-life governor as well. Life Site News, quotes a statement from Congressman Chris Smith on pro-life changes to Congress where voters “replaced 38 pro-abortion Members with pro-life Members and replaced 14 unreliable Members with reliable pro-life Representatives. Of the 93 Members of the Freshman Class at least 77 are committed to defending the unborn. January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever.”
Also beneficial to conservatives (in my view) was the retention of power by the Democrats in California, and Harry Reid in the U.S. Senate. While Reid’s defeat would have been a great symbolic victory, it is better that he (especially in his damaged condition) remains in place to provide a clear contrast to the conservatives over the next two years. If Nancy Pelosi prevails in her attempt to retaining power on the Dem side in the House, she will serve this end even more effectively.
By retaining the Senate in the control of his own party, Obama will have to own a substantial part of the blame for the gridlock that is likely to occur and will have much less opportunity to “pull a Clinton” by re-branding himself as a moderate (even if he was inclined to do so, which I strongly doubt). His leftist voter base has actually been strengthened by the political demise of so many “moderates” and they will turn the heat up, not down on Obama to push their agenda, with the willing cooperation of Pelosi and, to a lesser extent, Reid.
I predict that President Obama, given his narcissistic tendencies and sincere believe in socialist ideology, will actually move left and begin to try to persuade the general public to the rest of his leftist views in the same manner that he “sold” health care, remaining incapable of hearing public disagreement but only the yea-sayers of his progressive base.
California, already $140-160 billion in the red due to liberal policies, may be the most important element of the national mix. Its hope of a federal bailout has been (I should hope) firmly dashed by the change in U.S. House leadership, which means California far left politicians now own lock, stock and barrel, the fiscal and moral debacle that the Golden State has produced. “Governor Moonbeam” is back at the wheel, and the “gay” dominated, overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled legislature has just won through ballot initiative the power to pass state budgets by simple majority vote, doing away with the 2/3 majority requirement that had previously tied their hands.
There remains a 2/3 requirement for tax and fee increases but the Democrats are just short of a super-majority in both chambers of the legislature, and Republican legislators, under intense pressure to raise revenues, will not be able to invoke the Tea Party revolution as justification for intransigence since the movement was soundly defeated in their state.
Watch California pull a Massachusetts and jack already astronomical state fees and taxes through the roof, creating a fleeing stampede of businesses and wealthy individuals to other states, further exacerbating the imbalance of givers to takers and speeding the spiral of decline. How does this impact the pro-family issue? I think the entire leftist slate of issues will be showcased in failure as one package over the next few years as California becomes a cautionary tale to the entire world. (Heads up, conservative media!)
The homosexual movement did suffer some setbacks in the election beyond the firing of the Iowa judges. Staunch pro-homosexual legislators Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania were unseated, for example, but in Rhode Island David Cicilline, was elected as the fourth openly “gay” member of the U.S. House, joining fellow Democrats Jared Polis of Colorado, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Given last Tuesday’s changes, the House may be the least dangerous place for these radicals to reside, and their hopes of achieving policy victories are greatly dimmed on several issues, most especially the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (which outgoing Representative Murphy had volunteered to spearhead according to CNS News).
Considering the tidal wave that the election represented, however, very little of the homosexual agenda was eliminated from the cultural landscape. Nowhere but Iowa (to my knowledge) was the “gay” agenda prominent in any campaign, except for Carl Paladino’s unsuccessful race against Andrew Cuomo in (despite a rightward shift this election) still very liberal New York State. And the pro-family gains we’ve looked at in this article are not policy gains, but personnel ones.
The Paladino situation is instructive as to the reason the homosexuals have emerged largely unscathed (so far) from the cultural backlash. In a speech to Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Paladino said "I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don't want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option -- it isn't." An undelivered but publicly released portion of his written speech also stated "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual" and being homosexual "is not how God created us." These perfectly reasonable comments kick-started the homosexualist “outrage machine” and within just a few hours Paladino was being pummeled in the local and national media as if he had denied the Holocaust or called President Obama the “n-word.”
He then made the mistake that killed his credibility as a candidate. He completely reversed himself on the issue and in an interview on the Today Show, insisted that he was not only not “anti-gay” but that he would "absolutely" recruit gays to work in his administration. "You name it. Wherever their expertise may be, we'll put them in our government." He was tried by fire and consumed.
Having been on the receiving end of similar media histrionics, I know it is very hard to resist the urge to cut and run from the wall of flames that appears ready to consume you. There are no greater masters of psychological intimidation than the sorcerer-journalists of the Fourth Estate. My personal hair-thin victory in standing fast (and subsequent marginalization) is also an object lesson that one cannot emerge unsinged from the inferno. However, standing fast on the truth and facts of the pro-family position is the only way to stop the homosexual juggernaut and restore a God-honoring family-centered society.
Can we yet do it? Two things could tip the balance in our favor. First, a campaign by pro-family activist leaders to train Tea Party activists in the fundamentals of the pro-family perspective. We need a very concise, professionally-prepared primer for leaders on the facts and logic of why every thinking person should oppose the legitimization of homosexuality in society, as well as a single page of documented bullet points for a general audience that outline our case. These should be distributed by the hundreds of thousands in a cooperative campaign, sent by all of the pro-family organizations to their member lists, with instructions to hand-deliver and explain them to Tea Party activists and candidates.
This is not to suggest that activists and candidates should lead with the “gay” issue in the current cultural climate in which several elements of the homosexual agenda have gained majority support, but whenever the subject is raised, clear articulation of pro-family reasoning as an implicit premise of conservative logic could undo years of unchallenged propaganda by the homosexualists.
The second thing is to urge the Tea Party to expand the scope of its reform efforts to the media. Now that Tea Partiers have experienced media bias first hand, and seen its destructive effect in political contests, that shouldn’t be a hard sell. With so much of the so-called main stream media on the ropes financially there has never been a better time to organize business people and other advertisers to demand long-needed changes in media companies, such as a fair representation of conservatives in decision-making and journalistic positions, and enforceable public standards for journalistic integrity on controversial issues. It’s in all of our best interests for this to occur.
At present there are almost no champions of the pro-family position in public life willing to take any firmer stand than “marriage should be one man and one woman,” and even that opinion is frequently offered with apologies and dissembling. There are, shamefully, very few people in the country today who can articulate our views cogently and unapologetically, and fewer still who are willing to try, given the power of the media to punish them for it.
And this is why it remains an open question as to whether the Tea Party will save us from the homosexualists. We can improve our prospects, but only if we act quickly to make our common interests a component of their reform agenda in the next two years.
Dr. Scott Lively is an attorney and President of Defend the Family International, which equips pro-family advocates around the world to promote and defend the natural family, marriage and family values. He is also the author of Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda, which may be downloaded in PDF format without charge at www.defendthefamily.com.
This article may be freely republished and distributed with attribution.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
DON'T REPEAL “DON”T ASK, DON”T TELL”
Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions.
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active “gays“? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason many anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-“gay” schools are the latest proposal.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.‘s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate “gays“], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted“) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.
Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military. If, God forbid, we take the radical step of repeal, the consequences will be severe.
By Dr. Scott Lively, President, Defend the Family International, www.defendthefamily.com
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active “gays“? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason many anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-“gay” schools are the latest proposal.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.‘s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate “gays“], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted“) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.
Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military. If, God forbid, we take the radical step of repeal, the consequences will be severe.
By Dr. Scott Lively, President, Defend the Family International, www.defendthefamily.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)