Frank Maguire
Gaydom's "bully" pulpit (Part One)
By Frank Maguire
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.
In writing about "Selling Homosexuality to America," Regent University's Paul Rondeau tells us that, "The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam, and Convert the American public is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 premise of goodthink and badthink."
Rondeau uses, as an example, the marketing psy-ops gospel of Harvard University's Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s: "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological strategy in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean subverting the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends — using the processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or not.
The Lefty meme-ies are so obvious because they work on the olfactory-principle. I call it "If it stinks, it's us" public-relations.
Anyone who can be let out without a keeper knows that Lefties are motivated not cerebrally but glandularly: giddy feelings of superior "goodness," like the frisson that ran up the legs of Chris "NerfBall" Matthews.
Also, the negative attention span Isquierda, Gauche, Sinistra Southpaws (no offense to Cliff Lee of the Texas Rangers and others) are ocularly and auditorily challenged, and thus to engage their only functioning sense, their olfactories, the Left's managers must raise a perpetual stink.
Notice that all the "my child's been bullied because he/she is 'gay'" groupies claim — on cue — that their "gay" children/adolescents are being assaulted by misanthropic homophobes. Are these children/adolescents known by their parents to be sexually active? And, specifically, same-sex sexually active? "Gay" is, as the sexual-homo militants know, "doing" not merely "being." "Gays" want their behavior recognized as normal, covered by civil-rights protections under the laws that they hope to bring about by their persistent agitation. They have no compunction about using children as shields. This is a major tactic of their "planned psychological strategy."
It's time to "out" the "outers." The whole thing is so distasteful that I have evaded it. Shame on me! But as I observe the egregious ignorance that is now so pervasive, I am morally obliged to confront it.
Recently, I found myself in a dialogue with an intelligent, educated young woman on the topic of "Gays are genetically pre-disposed." The lovely lady is pursuing a graduate degree in psychology. And, her brilliant husband is one of the leading brain-scientists in the world.
I offered that there is no medical-scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. None! She countered that the progress being made in the study of the brain will, eventually, prove the genetic etiology.
In essence, then, she agreed that there is no extant evidence, but that science is bound to find, ultimately, the evidence. Such reasoning is known as an ipse dixit — an unwarranted assertion. It is an argumentum ad captandum — an appeal based primarily on arousing popular passions. And, it is premised on the grand-error that because some boys who exhibit a femininity, and some girls who exhibit some masculinity, are, ergo, "gay" or "lesbian." It falls into the category of philosophical speculation, and special interest propaganda, not scientific-medical reality.
In Part One of my "argument," I go back to a confrontation I had 28 years ago, in a major newspaper, with a Catholic priest who was (is?) a sexual-homo advocate. Here , I've produced my argument.
© Frank Maguire
October 23, 2010
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another.
In writing about "Selling Homosexuality to America," Regent University's Paul Rondeau tells us that, "The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam, and Convert the American public is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 premise of goodthink and badthink."
Rondeau uses, as an example, the marketing psy-ops gospel of Harvard University's Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s: "We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological strategy in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean subverting the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends — using the processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or not.
The Lefty meme-ies are so obvious because they work on the olfactory-principle. I call it "If it stinks, it's us" public-relations.
Anyone who can be let out without a keeper knows that Lefties are motivated not cerebrally but glandularly: giddy feelings of superior "goodness," like the frisson that ran up the legs of Chris "NerfBall" Matthews.
Also, the negative attention span Isquierda, Gauche, Sinistra Southpaws (no offense to Cliff Lee of the Texas Rangers and others) are ocularly and auditorily challenged, and thus to engage their only functioning sense, their olfactories, the Left's managers must raise a perpetual stink.
Notice that all the "my child's been bullied because he/she is 'gay'" groupies claim — on cue — that their "gay" children/adolescents are being assaulted by misanthropic homophobes. Are these children/adolescents known by their parents to be sexually active? And, specifically, same-sex sexually active? "Gay" is, as the sexual-homo militants know, "doing" not merely "being." "Gays" want their behavior recognized as normal, covered by civil-rights protections under the laws that they hope to bring about by their persistent agitation. They have no compunction about using children as shields. This is a major tactic of their "planned psychological strategy."
It's time to "out" the "outers." The whole thing is so distasteful that I have evaded it. Shame on me! But as I observe the egregious ignorance that is now so pervasive, I am morally obliged to confront it.
Recently, I found myself in a dialogue with an intelligent, educated young woman on the topic of "Gays are genetically pre-disposed." The lovely lady is pursuing a graduate degree in psychology. And, her brilliant husband is one of the leading brain-scientists in the world.
I offered that there is no medical-scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. None! She countered that the progress being made in the study of the brain will, eventually, prove the genetic etiology.
In essence, then, she agreed that there is no extant evidence, but that science is bound to find, ultimately, the evidence. Such reasoning is known as an ipse dixit — an unwarranted assertion. It is an argumentum ad captandum — an appeal based primarily on arousing popular passions. And, it is premised on the grand-error that because some boys who exhibit a femininity, and some girls who exhibit some masculinity, are, ergo, "gay" or "lesbian." It falls into the category of philosophical speculation, and special interest propaganda, not scientific-medical reality.
In Part One of my "argument," I go back to a confrontation I had 28 years ago, in a major newspaper, with a Catholic priest who was (is?) a sexual-homo advocate. Here , I've produced my argument.
-
"No scientific evidence proves that some are born gay."
"The Rev. (name withheld) Aug. 18 letter to the editor on bigotry against homosexuals breaks down in every conceivable way. It is internally illogical, unscientific, and (since he argues from his exalted clerical position, it is fair to refute it with traditional Christianity) ethically insufficient.
"Father ______'s entire argument rests on the word 'innate' — that some persons are genetically homosexual. There is absolutely no supporting scientific evidence. The only study (since, fully discredited) theory that attempts to argue this has to do with an observed difference in the size of a section of the brain. The reality is that alterations in bodily organs are, scientists know, affected by behavior.
"Fr. _____ could well be guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("this, because of this") reasoning. Analogous to this would be to claim that very sizable muscles compel persons to lift weights.
"Furthermore, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA, whose slogan is 'sex after (the age of) eight, is too late'), an organization of pedophiles, makes the same argument, as do sadomasochists. Should pedophilia and sadomasochism be accepted as innate, and, therefore, normative — equivalent to heterosexuality? Should we be 'bigoted' against them? Where does this logic lead?
"The greater failing of Fr. ______'s argument is his radical departure from the Christian ethic. Scripture absolutely condemns homosexual behavior.
"Does he adopt the highly questionable 'innate' theory and deny Scripture? It seems odd to me that one would profess a belief in God who has made certain persons so that they are compelled to behave in a certain way, and then condemns them if they behave in that way. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, "That is no Gospel at all."
"When Fr. _____ tells his flock that homosexual behavior is not sinful, he is telling them that there is no need for repentance. Is this what he wishes to convey? His church teaches, and has always taught, that where there is no confession and repentance there is no forgiveness.
"It is not loving to encourage persons to indulge in behavior that brings despair, disease, and death. Loving confrontation and healing, not falsely liberal tolerance of sin, is our Christian duty."
© Frank Maguire
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
