Saturday, August 06, 2005

Sticks And Stones

Trying to have a rational debate on the subject of same sex marriage (AKA Homosexuality) these days is virtually impossible on Internet discussion forums, stating your views and believes in opposition will get you labeled with all sorts of *titles. Some are blatantly disrespectful and vulgar and result in a flame war instead of a debate.

* For example: "Right wing nut job", "Fundamentalist ignorant closed minded redneck" "Religious Nazi" just to name a few, add vulgarity for emphasis and you get the idea.

The reason for most of the name calling, flaming, and disrespect stems from the anonymous identity of the participants. In other words, I seriously doubt that most people (save a few) would conduct themselves in such a manner in a live face to face debate.

That said, the truth of the matter is when the name & flame tactics emerge it represents the true colors of the pro homosexual marriage advocates that haunt most Internet discussion forums.

On the other hand, when they're not using profanity and insulting intolerant labels to flame and bait as they attempt to promote tolerance for themselves, they insist on other bogus labels/terminology attempting to stigmatize opponents and shame them into silence.

Lets review the terms: Homophobia:

This term is probably the most outrageous invention of the "gay" homosexual sophists. the illogic of homophobia is insultingly blatant.

Originally, homophobia was psychiatric jargon invented to describe a person's fear of homosexual inclinations in him or herself. "Gay" homosexual activists simply stole the term and redefined it as "hate and/or fear of homosexuals."

As a rhetorical weapon, homophobia is unequaled. It serves first to define anyone who opposes the legitimization of homosexuality as a hate-filled bigot. The universal inclusion of all opponents as homophobic is of course not emphasized. Homosexual activists publicly associate this label with violent "gay bashers" and hateful fanatics. When they use the term they want people to think about the *killers of Matthew Shepard, but in conventional practice they include every man, woman and child who believes homosexuality is abnormal or wrong.

* Matthew Shepard's murderers turned out not to be "hateful homophobes" as was reported primarily, they were homosexual acquaintances that admitted they robbed and beat him and left him hanging on a fence post to die over drug money. Don't take my word for it look it up and see for yourself.

Secondly, the term defines opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. "Gay" homosexual activists take special delight in this since it was scant decades ago that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry (removed by the political maneuvering of homosexual activists in a 1973 vote of the members of the American Psychiatric Association without a shred of scientific evidence or proof that homosexuality is a normal immutable human quality).

Thirdly, the term serves as the semantic equivalent of "racist," helping the "gay" homosexual movement to further indoctrinate the public with the notion that opposition to homosexuality is equivalent to prejudice against racial minorities.

The use of the term is in itself religious discrimination because it implicitly disparages and declares illegitimate the religious teachings of several major world religions. Adoption of the term by government constitutes a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the endorsement or inhibition of religion.


is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement. In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means irrational bias against a person. "Irrational" is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice. In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, as with multi-culturalism, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination. Discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. The "gay" homosexual movement has exploited this association to legitimize its own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

Moral discrimination is "rational" discrimination.

Folks, this issue isn't about "Consenting adults" or "bedroom privacy" or "individual or civil rights" like the advocates of homosexual marriage dishonestly and vehemently insist.

"Same sex Marriage" is the "Trojan horse" method of attack by homosexual activists and advocacy groups in the effort to legitimize homosexual behavior in the courts and by legislation. Should homosexual marriage be legalized then by judicial fiat homosexuality would be legitimized across the board. This means that school aged children by law would be taught that homosexual behavior is a "safe" and "normal" alternative "sexual lifestyle" choice and by law parents will have no grounds to object (regardless of the negative spiritual, moral, psychological, biological, and medical consequences) IOW unconditional approval and acceptance, kowtow or else.