7 point strategy to redefine sexuality and marriage

Although a majority of Americans do not personally  favor gay marriage, many believe that the institution of marriage will be redefined to include it.

They believe that the historic position of our nation (and of most of human history) will be rejected as a relic of ignorance and bigotry. But this viewpoint has been promoted by a very deceitful and manipulative distortion of truth.

A number of years ago, I suggested that legalization of gay marriage as a civil right will open a legal Pandora’s box throughout the nation. I said this to a university audience as a guest on a panel at an Open Forum. A visiting law professor immediately rejected my assertion. But she was countered by a nationally recognized lawyer in the audience who listed cases currently in the courts that validated my point. She remained silent for the rest of the discussion.    

I also stated that it would perhaps be more politically and legally amendable (and create less social unrest) if the gay community said, “All we want is marriage and the benefits that come with it. We are not asking for civil rights status as a minority group along the lines of racial identity.  We are not asking for businesses and Churches to be forced to affirm gay marriage. We are not asking for curriculum changes at the schools to include gay marriage and families.”

Instead, a growing number of lawsuits are being aimed at those who hold religious convictions against gay marriage (See: Bakery Owners and Price of Citizenship). Religious freedoms of Americans are clearly under attack.

Gay activists are determined to force the public to bow to the sexual preferences of a very small percentage of our population. If they are successful, people will not be permitted to teach the historical view of our nation and the view Jesus taught that marriage is a gift from God for male and female (Matthew 19:4-6). If you hold this view, you’ll be forced into public silence or threatened with the accusation of discrimination.

We must remind ourselves of the explicit and deceptive strategy that has been used to change public opinion. Beyond media efforts to normalize the homosexual lifestyle, the public has been subjected to an endless manipulation of words and ideas to promote the sexual lifestyle chosen by those who prefer same gender sex.

The seven points below survey the distortions of truth used to change the way the public thinks about sexuality and marriage. My purpose in exposing this agenda is not to force my beliefs on others or to suggest that I am more righteous.  

I offer this to expose manipulation and deception and to encourage discernment and rational dialogue. 

The strategy has seven key tactics

  1. Use the language of civil rights: Associate gay rights with 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 ignorant public will fall for the false comparison. Repeatedly mention gays and lesbians as if talking about Asians and African Americans or men and women. Associate 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 hold irrational phobias. Those who do not support homosexual behavior must be considered homophobic and hateful bigots. Make them out to be irrational religious fanatics who destroy civility. Deceive the public into thinking that opponents of gay marriage are 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. Use the divorce crisis among heterosexuals to make a case for allowing gays to participate in 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 denounced 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 and violence. 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, we must bully them 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).

These tactics have been used to pressure the public to embrace homosexual lifestyles. Our country has 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

(see: Tolerance as a strategy, not a virtue)

This entry was posted in Democracy, Democrats, Equal Rights, Equality, First Amendment, Gay, Gay Marriage?, Gender, Government, Homosexual lifestyle, Homosexuality, Law, Leadership, Marriage, Morality, Partisanship, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion, Same-sex, Sexual orientation, Sexual Preference, Sexuality, Tolerance and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to 7 point strategy to redefine sexuality and marriage

  1. This is so true: “Although the laws that protect all citizens are sufficient, gay activists demand special laws for their lifestyle choices.” I’ve heard all of these seven arguments used. It’s a very excellent summary Steve. This needs to be developed into a book . There needs to be more courageous folk like you to counter the massive institutional brainwashing (of the sheeple) that is working so hard to fundamentally transform the USA. it’s such a huge cultural force opposing the Creator, and an extension of the sexual revolution.

  2. Joel says:

    Steve, the crux of your argument seems to be that it is fine to discriminate against and injure (i.e. infringe on the rights of) gay people just for being gay because it is a choice of theirs and not who they are by nature.

    First, even if it is a choice, that’s still a horrible way to treat your fellow human beings! Homosexuality is obviously a very important part of their lives and their identity. It’s not like they’re choosing ketchup instead of mustard! Second, it’s not a choice. If it were a choice, then every day people would wake up and think, “I could be gay or straight today, but I think I’ll be ___________”. Can you do that? Do you remember when you were young making a choice? Or did it seem that you were (and are) naturally drawn to the opposite sex?

    The belief that it is permissible to relegate a large number of people (not “a very small percentage”) to second-class citizenship shows why gay people need special protections under the law.

  3. Firstly, the fact that the choice of sex acts defines their identity, as you say, is massively disordered and abnormal. I do not know any heterosexuals who identify themselves by their choice of who they have sex with (except perhaps Larry Flint and a few others).

    Secondly, I think the concern lies not so much in the choices that gays and lesbians make in their “private lives” (quotes because nothing ultimately is private), but mote the fact that they have such an intolerant agenda of trying to force the cultural, legal, academic, and government acceptance and blessing of this lifestyle.

    Lastly, the decision to perform sex acts on members of one’s own gender is certainly under one’s volition and will, as much as any other behaviour. It’s just an absurdity to pretend that these acts are somehow predetermined and there is no choice involved, convenient as that account may be. There is no scientific basis for that belief, but a lot of evidence that folks who want to can leave the gay lifestyle, and live wholesome, pure lives. Many have done so.

  4. Joel says:

    William, homosexuality is not a “choice of sex acts”. It is an orientation to have romantic or affectionate feelings toward someone of your gender. When I say identity, what I mean is that this orientation drives who you will spend your life with and raise a family with (and all the other things that come with this), therefore it is a significant part of who you are and how you view yourself. People in heterosexual relationships often change their view of themselves when they are in a relationship. To some extent, their partnership takes on its own identity. Same goes for homosexual relationships. To reduce homosexual relationships to just people getting together to have sex is highly insulting.

    If by “force acceptance and blessing”, you mean “demand equal treatment by others and under the law”, then I don’t see anything wrong with this. How is demanding to be treated equally intolerant? Beyond this, what are you being forced to do?

    In fact, in what way does this negatively affect your life? Where exactly is the harm? Steve mentions the ridiculous idea that people won’t be able to say or teach Christianity’s view on marriage any more. Don’t worry, you still will, you just won’t be able to use this view to restrict the freedoms of others who don’t hold it. This last sentence pretty much sums it up. Religion is no excuse to treat others as second-class citizens solely because of who they are.

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