GAY TRUTH

We should have seen it coming. Back in 1989 two young activists pushing for the normalization of homosexuality coauthored a book intended to serve as a political strategy manual and public relations guide for their movement.  In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance.  Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.” Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue tha

In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance. Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.” Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue that homosexuals were a class of citizens denied basic civil liberties, and that the courts should declare them to be a protected class, using civil rights precedents to force a moral and legal revolution. That revolution has happened, a

English: This protester was on his own and letting Minnesota state Senators know his position on gay marriage. This is freedom of speech in action. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Isn't it interesting how the politically correct in America proudly wave the banner of tolerance, yet hypocritically show extreme intolerance and hatred to anyone who contradicts their politically correct view?  Such is the case with the 12-year-old YouTube boy who expressed his belief that  gay marriage is wrong .  If you want to view the two minute, 11 second video that has as of 4/13/09 received 222,777 views, go to (the link is no longer available). The young boy asks if gay marriage is right, and then said it is wrong.  He said God invented male and female to get married and have children, and if you have a gay marriage then "that is kinda wrong."  He specifically said gays and lesbians were not bad people, but he did urge them to get married.  (He also informs us that he is very interes

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Few aspects of our public witness on ethical and political questions are as contentious and difficult as the questions of gay marriage and gay rights. The watershed announcement by President Obama that he too now supports full marriage equality for gays and lesbians (though he incoherently wants to leave that “right” to the states) has ignited introspection among many conservatives over whether it would be better to no longer defend traditional marriage in the public square. The danger is that articulating this particular social sin has the byproduct of creating resentment and hostility from those who disagree, thereby corrupting Christianity ’s attractiveness by unnecessarily aligning it with a political stance. It’s worth noting, I think, that the legal developments around marriage have the appearance of being victories for conservati

Image via Wikipedia Sarah Schulman , an English professor at New York's City University,   has written a new book, Ties that Bind, that pushes a new next step in the gay-marriage agenda: " Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs." If you disagree with us, then you are sick. This is PC gone crazy. Also author, Scott McLemee believes in the "new civil rights movement ." He doesn't go so far as Sarah and say that government should be used to force dissenters into therapy, though. His solution to persistent disagreement with gay marriage? "Traumatize 'em right back!" When you don't have a logical, lawful, sensible argument all you have left is abuse. Abuse those who disagree with you, call them bigots, write them off.  The gay agenda uses abusive emotions and the media laps it up. Australian politican Bob Katter 's own half brother (gay) response was: "It is hurtful.