The strategy for gay marriage is working (7 point plan)

It’s sad to see the thinly veiled arrogance one is treated with unless he or she fully endorses gay marriage. I am quite sure getting a job with CNN or MSNBC would absolutely require endorsement of gay marriage.

Don’t misunderstand. If they required treating all people with respect no matter their sexual preference, I would fully agree. But this is not the way it works.

The morality currently being imposed says that if you choose a different moral viewpoint on homosexual behavior, you’ll be treated as a social outcast and made the object of condescending ridicule or even angry intolerance — you might even get fired from your job!

We’re now at the point of facing widespread social coercion to approve the sexual preferences of a small number of people who want to engage same-sex behavior. Again, I do not mean forced to tolerate but forced to approve. In many spheres, you’re simply not permitted to have a different viewpoint without facing severe negative treatment. Is this the kind of tolerance we want for our Country? What ever happened to freedom? 

As a member of a democratic society, I respect the liberty of people to make their own moral choices within the law. In such a society, I also reject all violence against those who choose different lifestyles. But now we’re experiencing forms of social violence against those who simply disagree with same-sex behavior.

The really sad thing about this is that it’s being supported by a systematic propaganda based on deception and outright lies. I point this out not to claim any moral superiority to others (I am the worst sinner I know), but to expose fallacious logic being used as propaganda.  

I fully and painfully realize that it’s not possible to address sexuality from sinless superiority. We’re all sexual deviants, if only in our thoughts. We all struggle with temptations – whether heterosexual or homosexual. We all need God’s grace, forgiveness and strength to live out His will for sexuality.

I don’t address this subject to discouraging those who struggle deeply with powerful desires. Yet I am convinced that it’s unloving to say what people want to hear if it isn’t the truth they need to hear. As difficult as it is to live by truth, it’s the only path to freedom. This is why we ALL need a Savior and an Advocate in Jesus Christ (I John 2:1-2).

My deeper social concern is about those determined to radically change the institution of marriage. God ordained marriage for human good based on male and female. This is His context for bearing and raising children.

As is more than obvious, in a fallen world, the ideal of divine intent will not be fully realized and this is why I (like most pastors) invest very large amounts of time building strong marriages and homes. When I am drawn aside to address gay marriage, I am motivated by the same desire to encourage family according to God’s design.

Particularly troublesome regarding the national focus on gay marriage has been the manipulation of words to promote a radical redefinition of marriage and family. I feel a need to expose this agenda – not to intentionally offend others – but to invite clearheaded thinking based on facts. In the seven points below, I outline deceptive distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks. 

1.   Using the language of civil rights: For several decades, we’ve heard increased association of gay rights with battles for racial and gender equality. A desire for homosexual sex (we’re told) is an inborn condition, not a choice. Although based on false comparison and without scientific support, the aim is to get the public to view gays and lesbians as they would people of race. If successful, those who morally oppose gay marriage will be viewed as hateful racists who oppose the civil rights of an oppressed minority.

2.   Using accusations of hate and irrational fear: The goal has been to convince the public that opponents of gay marriage are bigoted hate-mongers with irrational phobias. They are homophobic and full of venomous prejudice. People are not permitted to see things differently. They are not free to choose a moral position on homosexual conduct. The agenda is in overdrive to portray anyone who does not endorse the gay lifestyle as irrational religious fanatics who destroy civility. Supporters of traditional marriage are presented as dangerous people who cling to bigoted ancient laws of a by-gone era.

3.   Exposing heterosexual hypocrisy: Attention is drawn to marriage as a failing institution among heterosexuals. This is partly done to make Christians appear to be hypocritical for opposing gay marriage when they have their own marriage crisis. It’s simply an effort to silence opposition to gay marriage. It also assumes that gay marriage will improve the marriage scene.

4.   Using the language of justice: In a twisted way, radical gay activists portray opponents of gay marriage as perpetrators of injustice. They are accused of inequity for denying loving people the opportunities to have the same rights and freedoms others enjoy. The laws that protect all citizens are sufficient but gay activists demand special laws for their lifestyle choices.

5.   Using the language of religion: Connecting gay rights to religious freedom and claiming God’s approval of gay relationships is another tactic. They scold us for failing to understand that religion is about love and tolerance. Although every major faith for most of history denounced homosexual behavior, they suggest that it’s the view of a fringe group of fundamentalists. They even deceptively portray Jesus as favoring gay marriage based on a supposed argument from silence (see: Matthew 19:3-9).

6.   Playing the victim card: Every crime or death that can be connected in any measure to opposition to homosexuality is used to demand special laws to protect them from violence. They want us to believe that all opposition to gay marriage incites hate and violence, even causing suicides. This has played on the gullibility of Christians and silenced too many of them.

7.   Using judicial coercion: Since State after State has approved constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, radical gay activists bully Americans into acceptance of gay marriage by judicial force. In Massachusetts four justices unilaterally imposed their acceptance of gay marriage on the entire state (even though surveys indicated that the majority of residents did not favor gay marriage).

All of these tactics are being used to pressure the public to accept and celebrate homosexual lifestyles as normal. Our country is being coerced to create special status for the sexual choices of a small percentage of citizens.

But we must not fall for the unproven hypothesis that being gay is something comparable to race and gender. Homosexuality is about the sex people are choosing, not unalterable conditions of birth. It’s both cruel and unloving toward those tempted by homosexual desire to teach them that they have no choice but to accept that they are born for this and cannot change.

Do we really want to make the kind of sex people desire a new civil rights issue?

Those who prefer homosexual behavior are free as consenting adults to engage in it. We must renounce those who treat them with violence for exercising their freedom. But if they’re treated wrongfully for their choices, the same laws that protect others should be applied to protect them. We must not make this about discrimination—unless we want to extend civil rights status to every sexual lifestyle people choose. Discrimination of the civil rights kind injures people for what they are by nature not for the sex they desire.

As I said, I invest large amounts of time in preventative, interventional and restorative efforts to build strong marriages. A radical redefinition of the institution of marriage and family will not improve things. Homosexual relationships are notoriously troubled relationship — often involving abuse and unfaithfulness.

Jesus Christ validated the words that have been the foundation for marriage since the beginning of our nation: “…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’” (Matthew 19:4-5).

Steve Cornell

About Wisdomforlife

Just another worker in God's field.
This entry was posted in 44th President, Deception, Democrats, Diversity, Don't Ask; Don't Tell, Equal Rights, Equality, Gay, Gay Marriage?, Gender, Hate speech, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality, Political Correctness, Politics, Republican. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The strategy for gay marriage is working (7 point plan)

  1. gerry says:

    It is ironic that SSM advocates use civil rights language because Conjugal Marriage is an institution that creates socially approved gender integrated homes (male/female) as opposed to SSM which creates socially approved gender segregated homes (male/male or female/female). It is the SSM advocates that are pushing the segregationist point of view of “separate but equal”

    Gender segregated homes deprive children of either a mother or a father. All things being equal children do best when raised by their mother and father in a loving home. This is the transcendent human experience for over 4,000 years and is reflected in the fields of psychology and child development with their emphasis on the importance of the mother/child father/child relationship. Experts from Freud, Erikson, and Piaget speak of this vital relationship.

    Against this vast body of work is a handful of contemporary “studies” whose weaknesses are well known within their respective disciplines: Lack of representative samples, small sample size, complicated comparisons, lack of heterogeneity of subject groups, measurement concerns, lack of statistical controls, & very limited data on children raised by gay fathers.

    Progressives correctly look with a skeptical eye on “studies” underwritten by Big Oil or Big Tobacco considering them ideologically skewed but swallow whole any study that supports a progressive agenda no matter it’s known flaws.

  2. There is admittedly some disagreement within the Gay community over what’s more important, the word “marriage” or the benefits and responsibilities that are connected with it. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. I really would rather not quibble over terminology.

    Here’s an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I’m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I’m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.

    The reason some people object to the term “civil unions” is because they fear such a designation would not entail full legal equality, at all levels of government. They insist that “separate is not equal.” Unfortunately that phrase harkens back to the days of racial segregation, when separate was indeed NOT equal, because the public facilities that Blacks had to settle for were invariably substandard.

    However, it is MY personal belief that if “civil unions” conferred ALL the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, at ALL levels of government, that would be acceptable, and I think most other Gay people would agree.

    • gerry says:

      “However, it is MY personal belief that if “civil unions” conferred ALL the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, at ALL levels of government, that would be acceptable, and I think most other Gay people would agree.”

      Unfortunately your personal belief isn’t the one subscribed to by SSM advocates who will be satisfied with nothing less than a radical redefinition of marriage.

  3. Phil says:

    Pastor Cornell,

    A friendly word of advice, in an article criticizing gay rights advocates for misrepresenting your views as overly based in religion, it’s probably not the best idea to close with scripture.

    In determining whether or not homosexual marriages should be recognized as equivalent to heterosexual marriages by the state, we must not fall for the unproven hypothesis that God exists and that he actually cares whether or not homosexuals get married. It’s ok if your religion informs your personal opinion on same sex marriage, but such beliefs do not constitute an appropriate basis for the state to continue to deny homosexual couples equal status under the law. The fact that the case for giving same sex unions the same legal standing as heterosexual unions is so strong is the reason same sex marriage advocates have enjoyed such success in the judiciary.

    But maybe you’re just not that interested in the legal argument for same sex equality; that’s understandable, you are a pastor, not a lawyer, after all. If you are correct in believing that same sex couples should be prevented from marrying, then we must identify some ways in which same sex marriages are substantively different than heterosexual marriages. In considering the important aspects of marriage, why don’t we use five requirements for a successful marriage that you may be familiar with.

    1. “We are teammates, not opponents.” 2. “We will value and respect each other.” 3. “We will acknowledge selfishness.” 4. “We will keep our physical relationship active and satisfying.” 5. “We will stay close to God.”

    The first three all address the fact that a marriage (or equivalent long term union) is based on equality, empathy, respect, cooperation, and understanding. These qualities (among others) are important both in creating a stable union, and in creating a suitable environment to raise children. There is no reason to believe that homosexual relationships are lacking in any of these qualities, or that heterosexual couples are somehow better at them. Despite what you seem to claim in your article, the relationships of every homosexual couple I know is based on a relationship of equality and love, and not just the type of sex that they are choosing to have. I am sure that you are a competent marriage counselor, and being such, have been able to shelve your personal biases and opinions long enough to recognize that any homosexual couples you have counseled have a relationship that goes much deeper than just the type of sex that they are having.

    Your last requirement is that a successful marriage must be based in a relationship with God. While I know several atheist couples who would disagree with you, I also know many perfectly religious homosexual couples who have no problem meeting this requirement.

    That leaves the fourth requirement, the physical relationship of the couple. While I’m sure the physical relationship of same sex couples can be just as active and satisfying as that of a heterosexual couple, there is one obvious difference between the two. But that’s the problem with your argument. When comparing a homo and a heterosexual union, the only substantive difference is the type of sex that they are having. If you still hold that a same sex marriage is invalid, then you must be basing that judgment on the fact that the type of genitalia the partners have is the determining factor in the validity of any marriage. That is, to be frank, a rather vulgar definition of marriage, which I believe rather cheapens the institution as a whole.

    • The importance of the reference by Jesus (from Genesis) has historical relevance to the discussion of marriage and family (both for humanity as well as American history). Here is a question for you: If the State chose to acknowledge gay marriage, would you accept the freedom of many to reject it based on moral and religious conviction? There is no way to harmonize Christianity with homosexual behavior. So would you validate the right of Christian Churches to refuse membership to actively homosexual people? I doubt it. The goal appears to be to get the public to believe that a Church denying membership to homosexuals is equivalent to denying an asian or african american membership. This is a false comparison and a deliberate deception. Race and gender are conditions of birth. Homosexuality is a choice people make.

      • Phil says:

        If the state were to acknowledge gay marriage then I would have no problem whatsoever with individuals who would reject that validity. Albeit I would give the opinions of these individuals as much weight as my racist great-grandpa who still gets upset when he sees an interracial couple, but I can recognize their right to hold those views.

        I think Christian churches deserve a little more credit than you are giving them, the ELCA and Anglican churches, for example, have been able to harmonize Christian beliefs and the acceptance of homosexual members, and pastors, perfectly well.

        Now, I can sympathize with your point that homosexuals play the victim card too often, and some advocates attempt to draw inappropriate comparisons between their pursuit of equal rights and the civil rights or feminist movements. And while such comparisons have not led me to publish an article, they have at the least elicited an exasperated eye roll from time to time. But, what I find more disturbing than same sex advocates attempting to play the civil rights card is churches attempting to pass themselves off as victims in the homosexual marriage debate.

        The truth is, is that while liberals such as myself greatly value the separation of church and state (which, if not explicitly detailed in the constitution, has been well established through judicial precedent) it would be hypocritical of us to claim that it does not cut both ways. It is wrong for religious convictions to prevent the recognition of same sex marriages by the state, and it would be equally wrong for the state to impose recognition of same sex marriages on religious interpretations of the institution.

        As far as your rejection of homosexuality as an orientation rather than a choice goes; I’m sure that we can both cite studies claiming that it is an orientation/choice and we can disagree on the validity of each, so I think it is much more valuable to consider personal experience than such studies. I do not recall ever choosing to be straight, and I have homosexual friends who have told me that it was not a choice for them either. I trust the word of my gay friends much more than I would ever trust some anonymous researcher claiming sexual orientation is a choice.

  4. Mike cullinan says:

    Phil said:
    “As far as your rejection of homosexuality as an orientation rather than a choice goes; I’m sure that we can both cite studies claiming that it is an orientation/choice and we can disagree on the validity of each, so I think it is much more valuable to consider personal experience than such studies. I do not recall ever choosing to be straight, and I have homosexual friends who have told me that it was not a choice for them either. I trust the word of my gay friends much more than I would ever trust some anonymous researcher claiming sexual orientation is a choice.”

    I have read of many cases of homosexual/lesbian couples that had previously been in a heterosexual marriage but divorced and and took up a relationship with someone of the same sex. In fact, it is my understanding that up to one third of same sex couples who have children got them from a previous heterosexual union.

    Also, recently I heard Brian May of the British rock band Queen being interviewed. on NPR. He spoke of once rooming with fellow band member Freddie Mercury, who died of AIDS in 1991. Brian spoke of Freddie first bringing home girls for, but at some point he switched to having relationships only with men.

    Now, I have heard the argument that gays originally got into sham marriages because of the pressure of a heterosexual society, and that they found their true sexuality and happiness when they got out of their marriages and found a same-sex partner.

    However, that does not answer the question of Freddie Mercury. As a rock star, he had casual sex with women, but later switched to doing the same with men only. You can’t say he was pressured by society to have flings with women, because it was what he chose to do.

    Something clearly isn’t clicking. Your say your personal experience is that you were never attracted to women, and that’s fine, but it is clearly not the case with absolutely everyone.

    Incidentally the pagan Greeks were known for viewing homosexual relations as normal, but they recognized only one form of marriage – a man and a woman. They distinguished between a relationship that was merely for dalliance and the one that their society depended on for its continuation.

    I hope that we can at least be as wise as the Greeks, and not indulge a group of bitter, disgruntled people who think that same-sex marriage is their Constitutional right just because they want it.

  5. Mickey Mouse says:

    What a load of garbage. If you want to fabricate this “gay strategy” just so you can vilify gay people for something you made up about them, that’s your business. If on the other hand you want to know what the real gay agenda is, visit the Human Rights Campaign website where it is all crystal clear for the world to see:

  6. Pingback: When the facts expose the agenda | WisdomForLife

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s