How to defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation

The gay and lesbian movement has been slowly gathering steam every since the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s. As such, many have been tempted to look at this movement as a culprit to the breakdown of the institution of marriage.

The gay and lesbian movement, however, is more like a vulture than it is like a hawk.

Where hawks actively seek out prey they can swoop in and kill. Vultures are content to feed off of the dead flesh of animals that have already died, either at the hands/claws of others, from disease, or simply from old age.

The sexual revolution, with it’s emphasis on sexual hedonism, is more like the hawk of marriage. It swooped in and fed on men from families by wounding them with the lie that they were aggressors and no longer needed.

It separated mothers from children by feeding them the feminist line that they were not “real women” unless they sought to become just like the men they were taught to despise.

And it picked off the children by condemning them to broken homes and permissive parenting. This had the unfortunate effect of producing weaker future parents and only perpetuated the downward spiral.

So how can we defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation?

Simple. We just refuse to provide any more dead flesh for them to feed on.

The simple truth is that the gay and lesbian movement cannot grow by producing their own offspring. Their plan of growth is limited exclusively to recruiting the products of heterosexual unions.

Share

31 responses to “How to defeat the gay and lesbian movement in one generation

  1. Excellent post Wes. It does make sense, since the movement can be likened to a vulture, to just not give the movement dead flesh to feed on. I also like how you mentioned how powerful sexual sin can be and that it does break homes/families; it's definitely been the easiest sin to fall in since the ancient world.

    • It must be so taxing building all these strawmen and then just knocking them down!!

      • So tell me Lance; How do you think we should defeat the GLBT movement and what timeframe do you think is reasonable for achieving that objective?

        • Per usual, I reject the premise of your argument. I do not see any evidence of an organized GLBT movement seeking to grow at the expense of poor and hapless heterosexuals ripe for the picking.

          • Oh, so what you were incorrectly labeling a "straw man" was really your rejection of the existence of a problem in the first place. I am curious, why would you step into the middle of a discussion on a topic and ridicule the author (me) for not addressing something that was clearly not in the scope of the current article?

          • I think it is a 100% strawman. You are inventing an evil that doesn't exist so you and your devisive Christian soldiers and go knock it down and claim victorious for your god.

          • Oh I'm sorry. I did not realize that you had established your own objective moral system to which you believe I am obligated. Can you explain this system to me? Where it came from, why I am obligated to it, and what it contains?

          • Funny, I don't recall getting your iron clad case for your system?

            In any event, with your reactionary blinders on, you missed the thrust of my post. I'll stipulate for the argument that being gay is immoral. Where is your evidence of this sweeping movement where the gays are preying on the weak heterosexuals to convert them as part of a growth strategy?

          • When you say "iron clad" are you referring to something that forces you to change your mind? I would argue that an "iron clad" case has been made for the authority of God over the world He made because, in the sense I am using the phrase, no sufficient defeaters have been offered and no positive alternate case has been built.

            As to your second point. I would argue that homosexuals are not borne, they are made. And since they are the exclusive product of a union between a man and a woman, the statistical probibility of ending homosexuality simply by denying homosexuality a foothold in the hearts and minds of our children is astronomical.

            Finally, as I said above, homosexuality is not a predator. It is far too effeminate an ideology for such a masculine label. Rather, it is more like prostitution or adultery or any other of the sexual sins that plagues and sickens the body politic (meaning mankind).

            So what we need to do in order to combat it is along the lines of what we need to do to combat any other disease. We need to focus on making the body (of mankind) healthy, morally excellent, and full of virtue.

          • I would argue that an "iron clad" case has been made for the authority of God over the world He made because, in the sense I am using the phrase, no sufficient defeaters have been offered and no positive alternate case has been built.

            Sufficient defeaters are all well and good as far as you changing your mind is concerned, but it's irrelevant to those who reason from the ground up and find the case for your god very lacking.

            As to your second point. I would argue that homosexuals are not borne, they are made

            And of course, you are qualified to make this assertion with the appropriate evidence. I await with bated breath.

            You still have yet to present the evidence for the case that the GLBT is an insidious movement, organized to grow in numbers at the expense of heterosexuals. Again, bated breath.

          • When you say you "reason from the ground up", I'd like to know what you think "the ground" is and how you think you are able to move in any direction, let alone "up". I ask because it appears that you are assuming naturalism/materialism as a default position and that raises two problems. One is that matter can't reason (among other issues) and the other is that to move from premise to conclusion requires a host of things foreign to a naturalistic worldview. So when you say you "reason from the ground up", I want to know if you really understand and can defend what you are claiming or whether you using that phrase more for rhetorical effect.

            As to the assertion that people are not borne gay. Well, I would cite biological design and it's apparent purpose and then say that I haven't found any reason to reject that design. So since human sexuality is designed and serves a clear reproductive purpose, I really don't see much more of a reason to defend what is basic and natural.

            As for the moral bankruptcy of homosexuality. Well, I would stand by the moral standard given by God, the divine moral lawgiver.

            As for the insidiousness of the GLBT movement. Well the only way they can grow is to recruit others. They certainly don't grow organically through natural processes like any natural organism.

            Hope you regain your breath, I would hate for you to loose consciousness and keel over. Then again, I suppose we don't have much to fear since the same biological design which brought you forth into the world will also cause you to breathe again.

          • Really? You are being defensive and trying to stand up and uphold YOUR beliefs but it's wrong for me to do that with mine? Stinks like a hypocrite to me. 😀

            Trust me, I'm gay and I have no desire to get married, ruin marriage, or make everyone else gay (not that I could.). I also have no desire to be or act like a man.

            There is too much evidence to even bother citing to show you that straight people are just as, if not more, hedonistic, demoralizing, permissive and dysfunctional.

            As for offspring, maybe the increase of out gay couples is God's way of taking care of all the bastard children that those slutty straight people make but wont take care of.

            I actually have more morals and respect for marriage, life and religion in my little finger than most of the many many straight people I know.

            I think what Lance is trying to say here is… Where is your research and source citation? And if you say the bible, may G-d smack you for lying because there is nothing in there that supports your ridiculous blind theory.

          • Well you lack respect in your reply, you seem to respect only when it suits your argument.

  2. I don't claim a default position. All truth claims must be supported by satisfactory evidence before they can be believed. If not, they can be left as indeterminate or shown false by contradicting evidence.

    As to the assertion that people are not borne gay. Well, I would cite biological design and it's apparent purpose and then say that I haven't found any reason to reject that design

    Millions of people are born every day with birth defects, missing limbs, diabetes, and other maladies that run counter to your purported biological design. Either your cosmic manufacturer is very poor at his craft or the state of humans at birth can vary wildly along every dimension. You haven't provided any evidence that sexual preference is any different.

    • As for the moral bankruptcy of homosexuality. Well, I would stand by the moral standard given by God, the divine moral lawgiver.

      This sounds nice to your ears I assume, but is assumes many facts not in evidence. You have a book written by humans stating homosexuality is immoral. The same book penalizes women for menustrating, a biological design as you put it. Your Bible has a poor track record of imputing morality to biological realities.

      As for the insidiousness of the GLBT movement. Well the only way they can grow is to recruit others.

      You are really good at this bald assertion, thing, Wes, and it's probably why you think you win arguments. It's easy when you don't have to present evidence for your claims. What is your evidence that there is an organized movement that has a goal of growing it's numbers? How many times do I have to ask the question?

      • It would be illogical to look at the way biological machines now coupled with the propositional statement given in the Bible regarding the falleness of the world and conclude that everything, especially death and disease, are part of the original design.

        "The same book penalizes women for menustrating"

        Where, might I ask, does the Bible "penalize women for menustrating"? I would like you to also show me how the context of the passages dealing with menstruating match the context you seem to assert they are written in (mainly, "penaliz[ing] women").

        "Your Bible has a poor track record of imputing morality to biological realities."

        I would also like for you to substantiate this claim. Please give me one good example by way of illustration.

        "What is your evidence that there is an organized movement that has a goal of growing it's numbers?"

        My evidence is the legal suits and precedents set by the GLBT community. And it is a community, otherwise there would be no pride parades. However if you are looking for an evil organization with it's own tax ID number, staff, and buildings, then I am afraid I'll have to concede. However in my survey of human history, movements, especially social ones are rarely an incorporated entity.

        As for growing in numbers, I believe the statistics bear that out. However, I would argue that what these stats really show is a rising trend of sexual immorality in general, not just same-sex attraction (though that is certainly a part of it) but of sexual aberration going through an overall rise in acceptance and practice.

        And as I argued above, I believe the solution to this problem is to encourage and support healthy families.

        • SHooting fish in a barrel: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/mens

          And as I argued above, I believe the solution to this problem is to encourage and support healthy families.

          And I submit to you countless unhealthy heterosexual families and fully functioning families with homosexual parents to show that you're barking up the wrong tree. But you'd never let evidence get in the way of a good Christian lynching.

          • Reading does wonders. You should try it some time. I addressed _all_ sexual perversions above. Go back and read what I've written and then you can continue with your tolling.

          • Reading does wonders. You should try it some time.

            Pot meet kettle. Then you can go back to your hate mongering for your imaginary deity.

  3. Homosexuality is reliant on the continuation of the hetrosexual species. Without hetrosexuals on the planet, homesexuals would eventually cease to exist. So which of these species adheres to the natural order of the planet?

  4. I would like to add here that if you take the sperm of a homosexual male and impregnate a lesbian woman according to the homosexual agenda we would produce a genetic gay baby. This is highly unlikely as to produce a baby we must revert to what is a natural hetrosexual behavior.

    To add to Mr L Dance's comments that we are homophobic, is nothing more than an agenda to say we discriminate. The true meaning of the homophobic is ones fear of deviant sexual tendencies in oneself. It is not the fear and hatred of people who choose their sexual preference. Can Mr L Dance define between a homophobe and a hetrosexual who says that sodomy is wrong?

    • Homophobia is "The IRRATIONAL fear of homosexuals, homosexuality, or any behavior, belief, or attitude of self or others, which doesn't conform to rigid sex-role stereotypes. It is also the rejection of people considered gay or lesbian and of all things associated with them, for example, gender non-conformity" This means that your fear is not rational!

      • So your criteria for labeling someone a homophobe is their insistence on biological truths? That seems like an arbitrarialy low threshhold. Not to mention the fact that such a moral pronouncement seems quite ad hoc in the first place without establishing the absoloute moral standard you think everyone is beholden to wherein not being a homophobe, by your particular definition, is a moral imperative.

    • none of what you said makes sense

  5. I never once used the word homophobic or fear. Project much?

  6. In 1973, the weight of so called "empirical data", and pressure from from the homosexual agenda changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This apex of hedonism and extreme narcissm has led to a profession of the gay agenda. To justify and rationalize abnormal behavior and hide behind false lies similar to living on the holodeck of the enterprise.

  7. Some psychiatrists fiercely opposed this action and circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified because the APA had and continues to be, off the mark and ascribed to moral relativism.

    The new diagnosis"ego-dystonic homosexuality" was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. This is the first attempt of the REDEFINITION strategy.

    This new diagnostic category was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality the pathology which it is.

  8. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. This is more evidence of the extremem measure of redefinition and betrays the agenda to a scrutinizing eye. Homosexual activists deny that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality are to be treated as other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma. More denial of the simple facts, thus an effort to redefine.

    According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread…. [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well. All members of any family are affected by a gay person coming out for many reasons that go beyond fear and missunderstandings. Very simply, thesae are issues of the heart.

  9. To move again the agenda they chose to redefine homosexual disorder by ignoring it, defacto -endorsement of there being no psycho social ramifications to homosexuality. The boundary was subsequently pushed again by the influence of the gay agenda.

    In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions). this seems to address only the torment of making the choice between hetro and homosexual behavior and that once the choice is made then its not a problem.

    It is amazing how twisted this story has become, because of the weakness of the APA.

    • The gay agenda has simply adopted a redefinition strategy. In the end it is an arrogant fools errand as the gay agenda has created and venerated themselvs in narcicisstic idolotry, ignoring the nature of man and women. No matter what rational premise is used for the gay agenda, it simply fails reason.

      "Afterward, it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they live in great strife due to their ignorance, and call such great evils peace." WIS14:22

      "But just penalties will overtake them on two counts: Because they thought wickedly of God in devoting themselves to idols, and because in deceit they swore unrighteously through contempt for holiness. For it is not the power of things by which men swear, but the just penalty for those who sin, that always pursues the transgression of the unrighteous." WIS 14:30-31

Leave a Reply