Previous 11 - 20 Next
What truly must be preserved and fought for is the right to freely express good conscience disagreement with Same Sex Marriage, regardless of whether it ever becomes "the law of the land." The apparatus of the state must never be allowed to force people to violate their conscience or to censor views critical of same sex marriage that are rooted in good conscience and not prejudice based on personal animus. That would start to feel like tyranny, it already is starting to feel that way now.
A poster here made the claim that there was no such thing as a gay agenda. To that, I offer the following commentary from the American Thinker: "Published in 1989, After the Ball is a seminal work which laid out a comprehensive plan to establish the “normalcy” of gays and lesbians and secure broader acceptance and rights. It is subtitled, How America Will conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. The manifesto was laid out by a pair of Harvard graduates. Marshall Kirk (class of 1980) became a researcher in neuropsychiatry. Hunter Madsen (class of 1985) received his degree in Politics and went on to work on Madison Avenue and become an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Today, twenty-five years after its publication, what is most striking about their work is this: Their ambitious plan, with a few verb tense changes, could be repackaged and sold as a History book, presenting a very accurate picture of what we have all witnessed happening over the last quarter century. Perhaps the only aspect of the plan that can be faulted just a little is its timeline. It took twenty five years, not ten, to achieve its goals. Not bad. Still an A+. [from Ch 3 of the book] We have in mind a strategy . . . calculated and powerful . . . manipulative . . . It’s time to learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign--we've called it the waging peace campaign--to reach straights through the mainstream media. We’re talking about propaganda (page 161). You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing--meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders--then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won." If that is not what can be called an agenda, I don't know what is. To claim otherwise is to be totally dishonest.
You have posted a lot of information in an attempt to refute the points I made but have not been persuasive. I question the objectivity of any study done by someone who is the director of communications for the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International. I would not expect him to be objective about any study comparing the level of promiscuity among homosexual men and heterosexuals. Better to be intellectually honest and acknowledge what many in the homosexual community would openly acknowledge. I have read studies that in Canada, where SSM, many of the partners in the union chose not to be monogamous. This underscores the point that the desire for SSM was really more about gaining an important symbolic victory that would shape cultural public perceptions about homosexual behavior. I have read that many, from within the homosexual community, actually believe that the drive for SSM has actually hurt them as group because more real issues that were of importance to them were disregarded because of the sudden fixation on redefining marriage. You cite the Matthew Shepard case while ignoring what has been discovered since 1998. Activists and the media told us that he was a homosexual and that his story was supposed to be evidence of a deep anti-gay sentiment in society—a stain that had to be addressed through hate-crimes laws, sensitivity training, and other measures. The Matthew Shepard story became part of the cultural narrative, a way to reshape what we’ve seen of American public opinion on homosexuality. According to one source: "Even Aaron Hicklin of the pro-gay publication The Advocate admits that much of the accepted narrative is false. Citing the new book The Book of Matt, written by gay journalist Stephen Jimenez, he acknowledges that Shepard was beaten to death not because he was “gay,” but for “reasons far more complicated” than being homosexual—most likely a drug deal gone bad. Jimenez’ doubts about the narratives go back at least to 2004, when in a 20/20 interview he countered the dominant way of telling the story." Besides, if you look at what I wrote, I never said that homosexual have not been victims of oppression, but that in the ten years leading up to legalization of SSM in Massachusetts, you cannot and should claim that gays were being "oppressed" in any way that is comparable to what blacks were experiencing in the 50's and early 60's. Its a specious comparison that is false on its face.
Why attack O'Neill personally? I am aware of his leftist tendencies, and that just adds credibility to what he is saying. He is not beholden to the powers of political correctness. He is not afraid to speak the truth or go against the "progressive" grain to make his point. To believe this was grassroots is to believe a fiction manufactured by the left. It is well known that the militant gay lobby long ago devised a plan to gain support for SSM by promoting the false equivalency between the civil rights movement for African Americans in the 1950's and 1960's to the drive for SSM today. Anyone opposing SSM would conveniently be cast as an opponent of "civil rights" and "equality for all." In the 10 years leading up to SSM in Massachusetts, no claim of oppression of homosexuals comparable to that experienced by African Americans in the 1950's and 1960's can be made that is not easily refuted. Grass roots? According to one source," recent surveys find that over 80% of gay men will have more than fifty sexual partners in their lifetimes, 79% of them have sex with strangers more than half the time, and the use of condoms is waning even though our nation has spent billions upon billions of dollars on all .. gay educational resources" Does anyone seriously believe this was a group that collectively en masse wanted marriage? Many Intellectually honest homosexuals in England and France have said that the imposition of SSM on their respective countries went too far and was unnecessary. They also see it posing a long term danger to the rights of children who are entitled to both a female mother and male father. Gender matters as much the left wants us to believe it does not. I have no personal animus towards anyone, but I do believe the redefining of marriage will harm society in ways that many cannot fathom now.
Writer Brendan O'Neill has said: "In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised. Gay marriage brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them. This is a campaign that is elitist in nature, in the sense that, in direct contrast to those civil-rights agitators of old, it came from the top of society down; and it is a campaign which is extremely unforgiving of dissent or disagreement, implicitly, softly demanding acquiescence to its agenda." O'Neill is no social conservative, He describes himself as a 'radical humanist.' Yet, he see the fast and growing 'acceptance' of SSM as a case study in conformism. He quotes another writer who said: ‘Public opinion does not change this fast in free societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free.’ I see a backlash in the future. Its one to legalize something, like SSM, Its another to intellectually coerce others into mentally accepting those new ideas by societal peer pressure and through demonization of those who disagree with SSM.
Writer Brendan O'Neill has said: "In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised. Gay marriage brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them. This is a campaign that is elitist in nature, in the sense that, in direct contrast to those civil-rights agitators of old, it came from the top of society down; and it is a campaign which is extremely unforgiving of dissent or disagreement, implicitly, softly demanding acquiescence to its agenda." O'Neill is no social conservative, He describes himself as a 'radical humanist.' Yet, he see the fast and growing 'acceptance' of SSM as a case study in conformism. He quotes another writer who said: ‘Public opinion does not change this fast in free societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free.’ I see a backlash. Its one things to advocate for SSM, Its another to intellectually coerce others into accepting those new ideas by societal peer pressure and through demonization of those who disagree with SSM.
One does not need to know someone personally to make reasonable assumptions about them as in this case.
"Comments from the UK are not relevant to the U.S. anyway. In the U.K., the civil partnership under which Elton John and his partner were "married" came with all of the legal benefits and privileges enjoyed by married couples -- it was easy for them to say that marriage itself was "unnecessary." No civil union in the U.S. has ever held equal status with marriage. " A lawyer for one gay advocacy group admitted that even if civil unions did provide the same rights it would not be enough: The status of "marriage" was sought because anything less would be treating gay unions as "second class." Another appeal to alleged oppression and the demand for not equal rights but special rights. No amount of claiming that this was the results of a grassroots movement will make it true. The intellectually honest like O'Neill, although a radical humanist is willing to see this for what it really was, and is. Also, it is not just a few gays who are "sell outs" as you insinuate that are opposed to SSM. In France and in the UK, they make sound arguments for why SSM was overreach and how divisive it has been. Don't think that what happens in the UK and France is not relevant here. In Europe, and elsewhere, many see the aggressive push for LGBT special rights as a uniquely American export that they resent. This issue is far from settled as the ripple effects of SSM will continue to be felt.
I agree with Brendan O'Neill, who is no social conservative and describes himself as a "radical humanist." He calls gay marriage a case study in conformism. He says that you really can't call it a "consensus" since that would imply many divergent voices came together and were equally heard and afforded consideration and respect. No, It's better described as conformism," the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under intense pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society: Gay Marriage." I think he is saying that at some point this false narrative of the push for gay marriage being akin to past civil rights movements was hatched and promoted by political elites and a leftist leaning mass media and anyone who didn't buy the notion that gay marriage as about "civil rights" was pejoratively referred to as a bigot, unenlightened, homophobic, etc. I think its fascinating to read stories from the UK and France where this was foisted on the populace how many people who are gay believe that the redefinition of marriage was both unnecessary and actually harmful to the rights of children who deserve to be raised by a female mother and a male father.
Good comment. You are right, they have a special contempt for people they perceive as "traitors."
The "Conservative" party in the UK did something similar under David Cameron. Now, they are losing support with many people flocking to the UKIP or the Labour party. It's sad: The Democrats in 2012 doubled down on their positions. The GOP responds by backtracking. They think that by taking out "divisive" social issues more people will be drawn to the GOP. They should pay attention to what is happening to the "conservative" party in Britain under Cameron.
Previous 11 - 20 Next