The Homosexual War against Christianity
Chapter 6
Homosexual agendas
Various articles describe the homosexual agenda to chilling effect. And
there is
and always has been an agenda; every social movement in history has had an
agenda unless a few peasant revolts are an exception. In the case of
homosexuals this agenda has been well documented from the outset.
It has been well known by the leadership class among homosexuals
even if most others only have a vague understanding of what is being
planned, by whom.
The main qualification to make is that there actually have been several
competing agendas. An overall agenda can be easily inferred, however,
from all those areas where the separate agendas of various sub-groups
of homosexuals coincide, sort of like a Venn diagram.
Of special concern here are those agendas that have anti-Christian
objectives.
And just about all homosexuals are anti-Christian even if some moreso than
others and even if the case of the Metropolitan Community Church is the
exception that proves the rule. Even the MCC is anti-Christian however,
in that its theology is opposite to nearly all beliefs of normative
Christians,
opposes those views, and substitutes a 'theology' that inverts historic
Christianity from top to bottom.
Sometimes all you get is a fragment of an agenda. A writer may want to
prove
a point; all that he or she reports is information that supports a thesis
and there
is no attempt to provide a "big picture" overview. An example is an
article
I came across that simply quotes from the 1972 homosexual manifesto
with two items from the "Gay Rights Platform" that year:
(1) Repeal all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving
consenting persons [not consenting adults]
(2) Repeal all laws governing age of sexual consent.
Another example comes from the Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 20,
of 1990. We are told that pedophilia is being kept out of public discussion
in order "to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance
into the mainstream."
You can also infer an agenda from a simple quotation:
"The masses must not be repulsed by premature exposure to
homosexual behavior itself"
The author of this statement was Marshall Kirk; it is taken from
his 1987 / 1989 book, with Hunter Madsen (aka Erastus Pill),
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays.
The quote has appeared with some frequency in discussions of homosexuality.
There have been a number of reviews of the Kirk / Madsen book, a tome
which is clearly labeled as providing ideas for a strategy to achieve an
agenda.
What should be kept clearly in mind with these reviews is that nobody
is saying that the Kirk / Madsen book explains how homosexuals come to
make the choice they do, to become homosexuals in the first place. That is
a separate subject. After the Ball is about marketing, how ideas are
promoted
and eventually enter popular culture as assumed "truths." The book is all
about
swaying public opinion toward acceptance of homosexuality. After all, there
isn't the least question that public opinion has changed dramatically in
the
past 15 years, even the last ten years. How did that happen?
One of the best reviews is by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. at the time, June 3,
2004,
the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His title was:
"After the Ball -why the homosexual movement has won." Mohler's outlook
was too fatalistic but he certainly expressed a number of valid points.
Extended quotations tell the story...
After the Ball "became the authoritative public relations manual for the
homosexual agenda," and its authors combined psychiatric and public
relations
expertise in devising their strategy. Kirk, a researcher in
neuropsychiatry,
and Madsen, a public relations consultant, argued that homosexuals must
change their presentation to the heterosexual community if real success
was to be made."
That is, they set out to "repackage themselves as mainstream citizens
demanding
equal treatment, rather than as a promiscuous sexual minority seeking
greater opportunity and influence."
It was unexpected by just about everyone, especially since the book
was published during the AIDS crisis at a time when it seemed that
Evangelicals were turning the tide against homosexuals. But "the authors
saw the disease as an opportunity to change the public mind. "As cynical
as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish
ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's
special protection and care," they said.
Credit where credit is due, Mohler had to admit. "They really did
understand
the operation of the public mind." Especially notable was how Kirk and
Madsen
"called for homosexuals to talk incessantly about homosexuality in
public.
"Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful;
more
above board," they asserted. "Constant talk builds the impression that
public
opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable bloc
-the most
modern, up-to-date citizens -accept or even practice homosexuality."
This said, talk about homosexuality needed to be strategic. Hence:
"When we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early
stages
of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by
premature
exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se
should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as
possible,
to an abstract social question."
It was vital to present homosexuals as victims, not as "aggressive
challengers."
Homosexuals must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that
straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector."
After that,
give it a little time they said, start the "process of conversion by
helping straights
identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status."
This means "mainstreaming of the homosexual image."
The average American fell for this line of thought just about completely.
Evangelicals were the most resistant to this appeal but many -or most-
Evangelicals were also won over with time. some had reservations
about aspects of homosexuality but were otherwise 'converts'
to the homosexual cause.
In other words, if you are s-o-o-o sure of yourself, if you are convinced
that homosexuality necessarily is a question of civil rights, if you
habitually
ignore Biblical teachings on the issue, if you use the word "homophobia"
as if it has clinical meaning, if you identify homosexuals as 'an oppressed
minority group,' you have been snookered big time by homosexual activists
who made plans to win over public opinion approximately 30 years ago.
and did so, mostly very successfully, by converting well-meaning but
very naive people who now cannot tell the difference between
homosexual propaganda they have internalized and any semblance
of psychological fact that tells us with great clarity that homosexuality
is a mental illness.
To get the process going, Kirk and Madsen made efforts very early to
persuade homosexuals to eschew the more bizarre appearance of many
of their number and, instead, cultivate a "look" that is just about
identical
to that of normal and middle class .men and women. Hence homosexual
ads and appearances in the media never show leather men or drag queens
or bull dykes or Nazis with their pants cut out exposing their rectums,
or anything else that is known by just about all homosexuals in their
enclaves in the Castro in San Francisco, or in 'their' part of Greenwich
Village in Manhattan, and so forth.
As well, efforts were made to enlist heterosexual parents of homosexuals
and other normal people who viewed homosexuals favorably. The idea was
to try and make homosexuality seem to be as non-threatening as possible.
As Kirk and Madsen continued: "It cannot go without saying,
incidentally,
that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA
[North American Man-Boy Love Association], must play no part at all
in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims."
As Mohler added : "The success of the homosexual movement can be largely
traced to the very idea of "orientation" itself. More precisely,
homosexuals
advanced their cause by arguing that they were born that way. Madsen and
Kirk
offer this as candid public relations advice. "We argue that, for all
practical
purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay..." "To suggest
in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms
labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a
stick
to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some
persons
to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and
seduction have nothing to do with it."
All of this -as Mohler did not say- despite the fact that prior to the
AIDS
epidemic of the 1980s the primary "sales pitch" of homosexuals was their
insistence that sodomy was a choice and that it was the best sexual choice
to make. Indeed, until much later, the early 2000s, with some never
convinced
otherwise, female homosexuals never abandoned the "choice" argument.
Special attention was given to religion from the start.
The book advised homosexuals to "use talk to muddy the moral waters,
that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry
[i.e. honest
and rational criticisms of sodomy and sodomites] and to jam some of its
psychic rewards." How can this be done? That is where inroads into the
'Religious Left' would come into play, those churches which were in the
process
of abandoning Biblical theology and morality. "This entails publicizing
support
by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to
conservative
biblical teachings."
Criticism of homosexuality, said Kirk and Madsen, should be characterized
as inconsistent, irrational, and hate filled.
As Mohler put it, "conservative churches, defined by the authors as
"homohating," should be portrayed as "antiquated backwaters, badly
out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology."
The step after that was to isolate "conservative Christians by presenting
them
as "hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that
looks
both comical and deranged." This would become possible through friends
of homosexuals in the Hollywood film industry and in network television
as well as mass circulation newspapers like the New York Times.
In addition to making critics of homosexuality look bad, homosexual
strategy
also included considerable myth making. Sodomites look good by identifying
them with respected historical figures, telling one and all that Abe
Lincoln
was queer, which is an absurdity, that Alexander the Great was a pervert,
an accusation which is not based on any reliable evidence, that Shakespeare
was a degenerate, that he didn't write Romeo and Juliet, and so forth
through
a list of everyone who strikes the fancy of homosexuals as a rich target
for false accusations.
Unremarked on by Mohler, there also is a trick that homosexuals use to
confuse people, including scholars who should kow better. Did Freud,
for example, write an informal letter to the mother of a homosexual
telling her
not to worry about her son's sexuality? Yes he did, near the end of his
life,
when he wanted to soothe a near-hysterical woman who apparently was
emotionally distraught.
However, Freud never retracted his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
in which he made it clear that "inverts" (as he called them for a time)
were
psychologically disturbed, and that sodomy was a pathology. This view
surfaced in other professional writings of his. And, of course, his
daughter,
Anna Freud, also a leader in psychoanalysis, who shared her father's
opinion on this matter as on many others, was open about her
view that homosexuals of either gender were mentally ill.
That is, homosexuals not only have a sexual pathology they are
pathological liars who have little or no respect for the truth.
In other words, whatever a homosexual may say, your best course
of action is to assume that he or she is lying until proven otherwise.
There is more to Mohler's review but this summary should give you a pretty
good idea of its substance. It is excellent work.
Mohler went on to complain that the "past 15 years has led to a social
transformation. By portraying themselves as mainstream Americans seeking
nothing but liberty and self-fulfillment, homosexuals redefined the moral
equation.
Issues of right and wrong were isolated as outdated, repressive, and
culturally embarrassing. Instead, the assertion of "rights" became the
hallmark
of
the public relations strategy."
Which is true enough. However, Mohler's conclusion was unbelievable.
He proposed no remedy for the problem except for Christians to double down
on what they had been doing all along, which was next-to-nothing.
His exact words are:
"Biblical Christians must continue to talk about right and wrong even when
the larger world dismisses morality as an outdated concept. We must
maintain
marriage as a non-negotiable norm -a union of a man and a woman-
even when the courts redefine marriage by fiat."
This is nonsense, not because this advice is evil, it is the opposite of
evil,
but because it is so shallow and lacking in thoughtfulness. It belabors
the obvious, it educates us to nothing we don't already know. It also
tells us
what many people don't like to admit: Traditionalist Christianity is
increasingly
irrelevant, it often is incapable of dealing with modern day social
issues in
the political or cultural realms, and has just about no leaders
who know what they are doing.
Yes, to cite Mohler one last time, homosexuals advocate the "rejection of
the very moral foundations which made this society possible." But what
are you going to do about it? 'Pray harder' isn't an answer, it is a
confession
of incompetence when that is the extent of one's "action."
We need nothing far more than that.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
