7 tactics for promoting gay marriage

simple-300x388

 

The seven points below survey distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks about sexuality and marriage. My purpose in exposing this is not to force my beliefs on others but to expose manipulation and deception.

7 tactics

  1. Use the language of civil rights: Associate gay rights with earlier battles for racial and gender equality. Claim that a desire for homosexual sex is an inborn condition, not a choice. Assume that a gullible and complacent public will fall for the false comparison. Repeatedly mention gays and lesbians as if talking about an ethnic group. Associate all opposition to gay marriage with intolerance and prejudice.
  2. Use the language of hate and irrational fear: Convince the public that those who speak against gay marriage are racist haters who have irrational phobias. Those who don’t support homosexual behavior must be considered homophobic, hateful bigots. Make them out to be irrational religious fanatics who destroy civility. Deceive the public into thinking that opponents of gay marriage are marginally dangerous people who cling to bigoted ancient laws of a by-gone era.
  3. Expose heterosexual hypocrisy: Talk often about how marriage as an institution has failed. Make Christians appear to be hypocritically unconcerned about their own marriage crisis in order to silence them on opposition to gay marriage. 
  4. Use the language of justice: Make those who oppose gay marriage appear to be unfair perpetrators of injustice. Make them out to be selfish for wanting to keep marriage for themselves and denying loving people the opportunities to have the same rights and freedoms other people enjoy. 
  5. Use the language of religion: Connect gay rights to religious freedom and claim God’s approval of gay relationships. Manipulate people into thinking that religion should only be about love and tolerance. Although every major faith for most of history condemned homosexual behavior, convince people that it’s the view of only a radical fringe group of fundamentalists.
  6. Play the victim card: Use every crime or death that can be connected in any measure to homosexuality in order to make it appear that homosexuals need special laws to protect them from violence. Lure people to believe that outspoken opposition to gay marriage incites hate, violence and suicide. This will especially play on the gullibility of Christians and silence them.
  7. Use judicial coercion: Since State after State has approved constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage, judicially bully people into acceptance of gay marriage by manipulating the judiciary. Four justices in Massachusetts unilaterally imposed gay marriage on the entire state (even though surveys indicated that the majority of residents did not favor gay marriage — even in Massachusetts).


These tactics have been used to pressure the public to conform to a radical agenda of militant homosexuals. Many gays are opposed to and embarrassed by this agenda.

We have been deceptively coerced to create special status for the kind of sex desired by a very small percentage of citizens. 

Those who prefer homosexuality are free as consenting adults to engage in the behavior in every state of this country. If treated wrongfully for their choices, they have the same laws to protect them that cover the rest of society. But a radical redefinition of the institution of marriage and family will cause significant social unrest in this nation.

Are we really prepared to make the kind of sex people desire a civil right? This is not about discrimination because discrimination (of the civil rights kind) injures people for what they are by nature not for the sex they desire.

Steve Cornell 
 

40 thoughts on “7 tactics for promoting gay marriage

  1. Same Sex Marriage in the U.S.A.

    It never had been about “Tolerance”…it is about letting the world make a choice….

    “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;” Deuteronomy 30:19

    You may quote “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:4-5), only those who fear or love God will listen.

    It is not about saving a nation but individual, Jn 3:16

    Salvation is about choosing your destiny after life and abiding in God’s commandments….with the full understanding that it is all made possible through His mercy and grace……therefore …FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY

  2. Brendan Simons says:

    You know, people like you are the reason I was afraid as a child and wanted to kill myself in high school for being gay. There are too many things I would like to say to you, but I have been writing them here http://whoneedsselfesteem.wordpress.com/ . I suggest you do some reading outside of your biblical scripts.

    • This is where you are as wrong as you could be. As I said clearly, “Personally, I have never spoken evil against a person who chooses a homosexual lifestyle. I would never mock them and feel no fear of one who chooses this life.” I am not interested in putting anyone down. But there is a difference between that and informed discussion. Certainly one cannot say, “If you disagree with my moral choices, I will kill myself.” If you were wrongfully bullied, those in authority should have done something to stop it. I was the kind of kid who stopped bullies no matter what their reason. I didn’t tolerate bullying and I was tough enough in my high school days in Philadelphia to stop most kids who bullied others. And I did stop it on plenty of occasions. No, you would not have had to worry about me. But this is different from informed conversations about the truth. I do not accept that a person is gay in an unchangeable way. There are far too many people who have left the lifestyle behind.

      • Brendan Simons says:

        No, I was referring to ignorant beliefs that claim homosexuality is a choice. You are as wrong as you could be.

      • Brendan Simons says:

        As a side note, I was never bullied for being gay because no one knew about it. The pressure to hide it from a society that is so totally indulged in selfish claims that religion says no and therefore is wrong and disgusting is a dangerous society for any gay person.

        Another side note, I am plenty able to defend myself, I am a collegiate varsity athlete and if you are by any means challenging my “toughness” based on my being gay, then I suggest you start realizing how prejudicial you are. I do not worry about you as far as my physical health, but I do worry about your self-righteous beliefs that impede on a nation’s rights.

      • Brendan Simons says:

        Are you aware of aromatase?The presence of a sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) in the pre-optic hypothalamus, which is most commonly larger in males than in females. It has been discovered that an ovine SDN (oSDN) in the pre-optic hypothalamus that is smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexual males. Neurons of the oSDN show aromatase expression which is also smaller in homosexual males versus heterosexual males, suggesting that sexual orientation is neurologically hard-wired and may be influenced by hormones. Having said this, it is more likely that oSDN morphology and homosexuality may be programmed through an androgen receptor that does not involve aromatisation.

        Personal experience. I never chose to be gay, I tried my hardest to not be gay. I have done my research pastor, for about 12 years I have been trying to reverse this and it is impossible. I am homosexual, I was born homosexual, I cannot change that I am homosexual.

      • I have a good friend who is a neurophysiologist and I will run your theory about aromatase by him. But, at the end of the day, I am not convinced it changes anything. Let me explain. Occasionally someone will ask me if I chose to be heterosexual. The aim of the question is to trace the origins of sexual orientation. But even if I could prove that I was born genetically preconditioned to be sexually attracted to women, it wouldn’t mean that acting on the attraction would always be the ethically right decision.

        Answering source questions for behaviors will not necessarily lead to moral assessments of those actions. Morality has to do with right and wrong; source questions are more complex. Sources behind behavior could include genetic, cultural, experiential and social contributors. But sources cannot force me to behave in a certain way. They can exercise strong influence over me but, in the end, I must choose to act in relation to those influences. I see things this way based on a high regard for human dignity. And this means that I must look elsewhere for deciding matters of right and wrong.

        Consider, as an example, an adulterous woman who complains that her act of adultery (i.e. her wrongful heterosexual behavior) was because of her distant and uncaring husband. Sympathy toward her for being in a troubled marriage is understandable but it doesn’t mean that her act of adultery was the morally right choice.

        When resolving ethical and legal questions, a person’s choice must be considered as a primary factor in sexual conduct. Arguments for sexuality based on genetic predisposition do not advance discussions about right or wrong or what is best for a society. It is possible to be physiologically inclined toward many different types of behavior. But we must be very careful about using such impulses to define personhood or to justify behavioral choices.

        I do not think it is best to speak of any type of sexual desire outside of the context of human choosing. And it is especially misleading to compare civil rights battles regarding race and gender to battles for sexuality. This is a false comparison that removes human choosing from sexual behavior. It also gives people the misleading impression that those who desire certain sexual lifestyles face mistreatment comparable to the wrongful ways African-Americans were treated during the civil rights battles. This is a highly offensive comparison and using it to gain support for sexual lifestyles is a form of emotional manipulation. If people are wrongly treated because of lawful sexual lifestyles, there are sufficient existing laws to provide protection for them. Creating new laws to support sexual lifestyles is unwise and sets a dangerous legal precedent.

        A society that intends to condemn certain forms of sexual conduct as illegal, must treat sexuality in the context of human choosing– not as a predetermined condition.

  3. Tammy says:

    I am doing a paper where I have to identify the tactics each side of the same-sex argument uses and I thought I would have to visit another site to see the tactics those against same-sex marriage use. Surprisingly enough I noticed every tactic you claim those who seek to legalize gay marriage use, you use the very same tactics in this post. You played the victim by making it seem as if though gay activists are oppressing you albeit you have rights to get married so I really don’t think you’re being oppressed, and no one is stopping you from having an opinion. You say gay rights use civil rights as a tactic, but you used freedom of speech in such a way that it was your tactic. You claimed gay marriage supporters used the Bible as a tactic, but you used it as well. Objectively speaking you do exactly as they do, so your tactics are the same.

    • Yes, we all have tactics when we make a case for anything. The question I am interested in is the truthfulness of the content not so much the tactic itself. You’ve by-passed the main point.

    • Brendan Simons says:

      Yes, Tammy I agree. The one argument against is the victim card in which their oppressive beliefs are under attack. Protecting the oppressed does not oppress the oppressor.

  4. DENNIS GOULET says:

    No Man or Woman shall be above another “MARRIAGE FOR ALL OF MARRIAGE FOR NONE”. This has nothing to do with Religion this is about Human Rights. Shame on you if you invoke God and his name in your prejeduices.

      • DENNIS GOULET says:

        So then the question becomes do you prefer your wife or another woman or maybe more?

      • Answering this question will not solve the ethical matters of individual choice. Ultimately, only God can do this. But the state has also made some forms of sexual conduct punishable.

      • Brendan Simons says:

        That is not the discussion and that argument you just presented is how your anti-same-sex marriage is so ignorant. Sexual orientation is not the civil right, but a right to equal benefit from the government, which pays about 1150 entitlements, benefits, or tax cuts to only heterosexuals. This is where our rights our impeded.

  5. What proof is there that Homosexuality is un-natural or immoral?
    Where in the Bible does it actually say it’s a Sin?
    Where does your definition of what Marriage is come from?

  6. Is there a divine plan for marriage? Did our Creator establish marriage in a specifically defined way?

    When asked about divorce, Jesus went directly to the authoritative source for understanding the origin and nature of marriage. His defining point for understanding marriage is captured in the words “at the beginning.” He pointed to a written source “Haven’t you read?” and treated what was written as the voice of God. The original design for marriage is based on His words, “the Creator made them male and female and said, ….”

    Matthew 19:4-6

    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one.”

    Genesis 2:18, 22, 24

    “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ … Then the Lord God made a woman … and he brought her to the man. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to (cleave to) his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

    I Corinthians 6:9-11

    “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

    • I though the King James Version was the Christian Standard not the New International Version.

      Those quotes from Genesis and Matthew can also be interpreted to mean the a Man is Required to find a wife. Which would make all bachelors sinners.

      And what about:

      Ephesians 5:22-24
      New International Version (NIV)
      22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

      1 Corinthians 14:34-35
      New International Version (NIV)
      34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

      1 Timothy 2:11-14
      New International Version (NIV)
      11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

      Do you also support the subjugation of women and the belief that every woman from School teacher to Personnel manger to Business owner is a sinner as well ?

      • I believe every human being is made in the image of God and therefore is a being of dignity. I equally believe that every human being is a sinner in need of a savior. Christianity exalted the status of women far beyond the culture of the New Testament times. You are misreading the texts you list. Do you attack Islam with the same concerns?

      • That was not an “attack” it was a point of fact. How do you ignore one part of Biblical teaching by exalting the status of women beyond the culture of the New Testament. Yet use that same culture to demonize Homosexuality?

  7. As for religious arguments, I don’t care. I’m not Christian so they don’t really wash. If you use the justification of biblical teaching to prevent homosexuality, you may as well make it law that everyone is a Christian. What you’re not understanding is that nobody is forcing anything on you, nobody will prevent Christain marriage. Whats wrong with letting people live the life they wish if no harm is caused to anyone outside their relationship? Allowing same-sex marriage does not infringe your rights in any way, you may keep whatever opinions you have, you may express those views however you may wish, you will not be forced to do or think anything. Whatever your views on any type of personal relationship, if the details do not concern or directly affect anyone other than those involved it is not yours or anyone else’s business to prevent that relationship.

    • Tell this to the people in Massachusetts who oppose same-sex marriage but are having it forced into their schools. Should we respect their freedom to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds? Or should we force their children to be indoctrinated with a lifestyle their families oppose? You make it sound far more simple than it actually is.

      Consenting adults are free to live in homosexual relationships in this nation. But if the Government chooses to give gay couples the same benefits and rights of marriage as heterosexuals, how would it protect the freedoms of those who morally oppose homosexuality? If the State exalts the sexual choices of those who want gay marriage to civil rights status (comparable to race and gender), it will open a social and legal Pandora’s box. Citizens will not be permitted to morally oppose homosexual behavior without risking accusations of discrimination and racism.

      Teaching respectful treatment of everyone is a much better alternative to forced affirmation of the sexual preferences of a few.

      • Nobody is forcing children to be indoctrinated into anything other than the religious lifestyles imposed on them by their parents. Being told that ‘some people do it differently to your parents and thats ok’ is not the same as ‘you must do it like this or you will burn in hell forever’.

        You are free to morally oppose anything you like, I happen to morally oppose certain tax breaks given to some people and/or corporations, are my freedoms being violated? No. I am free to object to anything done by a public body but I am not free to discriminate on any grounds which are deemed illegal by an elected government, this is democracy not theocracy.

        “Teaching respectful treatment of everyone is a much better alternative to forced affirmation of the sexual preferences of a few.” – I suggest you practise what you preach and respect other people rather than banishing them into sub-human status.

  8. I don’t see the problem here. I read the SB48 fact sheet and there’s nothing about overriding anyone’s Religious freedoms. It simply educates children on anti-discrimination laws by teaching them the the LGBT community exists and that they are no different than anyone else beyond their sexual orientation.

    If someones family has a discriminatory Religious belief against the LGBT community there is nothing stopping them from teaching it to their children at home.

    This law just requires that children be taught in school to behave and show proper respect to the legal rights of that community to head off bullying or even worse behaviors. No different that teaching a cultural or ethnic sensitivity class.

    I didn’t notice anything about Private or Religious schools being required to do the same. If they are, then I agree they should write in an exemption for Religious Schools as it would violate their Right to teach their Beliefs.

      • So we pass laws to ban behaviors that only a certain demographic doesn’t like? That would be a slippery slope indeed.

        Moral issue? Morals are subjective, they differ from person to person, culture to culture.

        Besides, by what standards is it immoral?

      • Homosexual behavior between consenting adults is not against the law. And those who consider homosexual conduct immoral are free to do so without consequence.

      • Exactly, so whats the problem with them being married or schools teaching children to respect their rights as fellow human beings?

        Far as I’m concerned about morals, everyone has as much right to them as any listed rights in the Constitution. Perhaps more right as they are much deeper seated in a persons self-identity.

      • Brendan Simons says:

        You just proved the point that opposing same-sex marriage is dependent only on individual, religious belief, not breach of law. You believe that it is a moral issue born in your theocracy, and therefore, these moral ramifications should remain out of legislation.

        As far as your second sentence, you told me there was no definite evidence suggesting that homosexuality is an inborn trait. Well, likewise, there is no definite evidence suggesting that people can stop being homosexual.

        Also, have you heard of Michael Jackson?

  9. Tim says:

    I appreciate this post and its focus, not on the issue of a Christian view of the morality of homosexuality or the source of homosexual behavior or the pros and cons of gay marriage, but rather on the scope and nature of this very heavy-handed agenda to promote gay marriage. There are some people (gay or not) who will never abandon their support for gay marriage, regardless of the facts. They are wholly committed to arguing in its favor in the same way that a two-year-old focused on getting that cookie before dinner just can’t hear any explanations for why that’s not a good idea. If any one or even all of the seven arguments that you point out is proven without foundation or merit, it doesn’t matter, they’ll continue to repeat them louder, as has happened in the comments.

    However, I’m hopeful that some people who have recently expressed support for gay marriage who are open to rational debate. They watched Will and Grace and they’ve heard the media pronouncements that convince them that sexual orientation is in-born and they’ve responded to the civil rights language and it doesn’t seem like creating such a thing as legally recognized gay marriage would really have that big of an impact on society or themselves, and they’re certainly not prejudiced, ignorant, fanatical haters and wouldn’t want to be thought of that way, so why should they stick their necks out and oppose gay marriage? They don’t see the harm. But they haven’t thought about the issue beyond the substance-less media barrage, and they might be brought to see the importance of the issue, and even change their minds (regardless of how unpopular it would make them with our cultural leaders), if they were exposed to facts.

    The most important fact about legal marriage, as it relates to the 1150 entitlements, benefits and tax cuts that Brendan cites, is that those benefits are not granted by the government for the sake of the two people getting married. They are not a reward for being heterosexual (and in fact many gay men have married women and had children). They are not an affirmation of heterosexual love as superior to homosexual love. Those benefits exist solely for the benefit of children who may result from heterosexual sex and who have the best chance of survival, of a happy existence, of becoming productive citizens when raised by their own biological mother and father. Children only come from heterosexual sex. The existence of a stable future generation depends vitally on children being raised in the best way they can be. It is a vital interest to the government to provide all the incentives it can to embedding heterosexual sex in a stable institution that gives the children that naturally come from that the best chance. The government has no interest in providing those kinds of incentives to gay couples. No gay couple ever accidentally got pregnant as a result of fooling around together. If gay sex could get anyone pregnant, gay couples would have a point in saying that they were unfairly discriminated against. But arguments that they’re unfairly being excluded from an institution for no good legal reason are similar to a woman complaining that her doctor is discriminating against her by not giving her a prostate exam. Or a man complaining of discrimination because his insurance policy won’t cover him in the case of uterine cancer. The whole point of marriage (which is about protecting innocent kids who are the natural intended or unintended byproduct of heterosexual sex) just doesn’t apply to gay couples.

    Anyway, I appreciated the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s