The Faces Of The Homosexual Agenda Enemy
April 8, 2009 · By Matthew Campbell
The National Organization For Marriage, a US-based group, has an amazing new advertisement showing the real agenda and real effects behind the push for recrafting homosexual unions as marriages. All that I can add here is a plea to my fellow Canadian socons to wake up and see what a bit of polish, and less self-pity can do for a movement’s image!
Good effective & respectful ad.
It’s interesting to see that way that the primitive strain of conservatism thrives on fear. This ad makes no logical argument at all: it simply provides unsubstantiated, anecdotal “threats” against an ominous visual background.
I guess when you don’t actually have a defensible position, you make your bricks out of fear rather than fact. It would have been interesting to hear how gay marriage changes the way that straight people live. I haven’t noticed the legalization of gay marriage has changed anything for me, except providing more fodder to comment on blogs about.
What reassuring is that state by state, province by province, and country by country, these guys are losing.
How incredibly stupid.
Is it any wonder we of the Conservative movement are considered backward, hillbillies? Thanks guy for making us look like idiots again.
What a pack of BS and lies. I can see why people like you like it.
Here is a really simple rule for freedom.
1) If you don’t agree to same sex marriages, don’t marry a gay person.
2) Don’t agree with same sex marriage, don’t go to one.
See you have choice and freedom, you also have freedom to wad up underroos and cry in mock pain and fear, just like a child.
And here is the audition tapes. They couldn’t find real people so they had to hire ACTORS who, I admit, do a good job of ACTING like as if they are being harmed by gay marriage. Good ACTING job, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjVDZxho54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqNFBt33o4
And if right wingers actually thought about this, all the complaints have nothing to do with gay marriage laws.
In the case of the doctor, it is a complaint against the professional standards of conduct issued by the state licensing board, and the others are complaints against city and state anti-discrimination laws for those who provide public services and accommodation and receive tax breaks and other benefits in return from the state or city.
Even if they won the gay marriage fight, doctors will still be compelled by their licensing boards to treat all patients, whether they are gay or straight; and organizations who provide services to the public and receive tax breaks and exemptions (as in the NJ case) will still have to abide by public anti-discrimination laws.
Epic fail.
Unfortunately, the train has left the station. If the gay lobby had been smarter, they would have opted for and been happy with “union” vs. marriage, and the rest of us would ALL have been good with that re: civil rights, recognition. respect.
As it is, I am left with a seriously “ucky” feeling, as gay marriage is frankly “silly’ and, even if it is legal, I can never take it seriously. It makes me feel worse, not better. Could they not pick a different word? I would have rather been respectful of the changes with introducing “union”, but they had to put SEX into it and pretend the unions are the same as those heterosexual REALmarriages that produce CHILDREN for the future! Sorry folks, it come down to that, and no, you can’t adopt mine. Equal but different should have been the goal.
Sorry, you went too far ..
So to recap: a group of actors perform a professionally scripted lines, describing without specific generic fear-producing scenarios, several of which have NOTHING to do to with “marriage”, in terms and against a background designed to create a sense of threat.
I guess if you’re the kind of person who actually believes that fatherly looking guy in the white coat selling toothpaste in the infomercial really IS a dentist, you might be convinced. ;)
“gay marriage is frankly “silly’ and, even if it is legal, I can never take it seriously. It makes me feel worse, not better. Could they not pick a different word?”
Why? It may bother you, and that’s regrettable – it would be nice if it didn’t. But it doesn’t bother me, and the increasing number of jurisdictions to legalize gay marriage suggests that it doesn’t bother most folks. Except the Vatican and the Taliban, of course.
Yes Dalton, 50% of Canadians think gay marriage is either silly or wrong. I am in the silly camp. It does not bother me at all, but it is silly. Legal equality with respect to pensions, celebrations of love, living life well etc., doing what you want , all good!
What on earth does this have to do with religion??? Your juvenile comparisons to religions, Catholicism and the Taliban are just that, juvenile. It does suggest, though, that YOU might have a problem with tolerating others’ religious beliefs.
Teh Gays are coming to get you Mat,… They’re going to make you gay too, they will gayify kids, they will qyeerify your dog, your girl friend will insist on girl on girl and you will not be allowed to watch. Cats and dogs will sleep together, Stephen Harper will join the NDP and have a huge homo gay thingy with Taliban Jack.
This may actually occur in your universe,… in mine I will still be very happily married to my wife and the sun will rise in the morning
“50% of Canadians think gay marriage is either silly or wrong.”
Really? Source, please?
“YOU might have a problem with tolerating others’ religious beliefs.”
Nope, I have no problem whatsoever tolerating others’ religious beliefs. I find certain religious practices abhorrent (the abuse of women under the primitive forms of Sharia law, the hatemongering promoted by people like the Westboro Baptist Church), but I think in most cases religion is a force for good.
For those whose religious beliefs forbid gay marriage, I will staunchly defend their right not to marry anyone of the same sex.
L writes:
“Equal but different should have been the goal.”
“Equal but different.” Why does that sound vaguely familiar? Oh, right.
P.S. You know what this site needs? A preview button. I’m just sayin’.
Guelphfirst. “We of the conservative movement”?
As if you are remotely conservative. I smell a troll.
Gay marriage? L is correct: silly, very silly.
“L is correct: silly, very silly.”
So…why all the fearmongering?
Dalton, here are a couple of sources, since you asked.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story.....50410.html
http://www.allacademic.com/met.....index.html
CC Yes equal but different. What is the matter with having different DNA and different views? Is this Canada? You are tall; I am short; or you are short; I am tall. You like asparagus and I like green beans. so? .. I think your link is silly too, so preview your own comments.
Thanks, L. I appreciate the links.
However, nothing you provided supports your suggestion that “50% of Canadians think gay marriage is either silly or wrong”.
One is a link to a three year old study which examines the political dimensions of the Liberal strategy in advancing the act.
The other is a four year old environics poll which asks about peoples’ response to a specific piece of legislation.
To me the most interesting fact was the large majority of young people who supported the law. As has been noted elsewhere – this is not an issue anymore. Young folks just don’t care – more and more jurisdications are recognizing gay marriage every year, and the sky ain’t falling.
Young people don’t care? Or is it more accurate to say that they have been indoctrinated by public education, complete with travelling drama groups who visit the schools, promoting this crap, with NO teaching of the other side, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Dalton. It is true – those are old links, as the media does not follow “old news”. This is still an issue – we 50% are just quiet, given the legislation, and still think it is silly or wrong. Nothing has changed. It is just off everyone’s radar until the issue comes up again, as it did in this post. Americans have been more conservative on social issues.
It is true that young people are more tolerant, but perhaps they are a bit naive too; my experience was that my friends (who listened to profs at school) changed their views a lot as they got older, especially when they had family responsibilities, obligations, money of their own and bills, taxes to pay. I am sure that the “gayandright blogger”, who I read and agree with on almost every other political issue would agree with you on this one.
When I first heard about gay spouses not having access to pensions, to me, it was a non-issue. It was an eye-opener that some saw themselves as a couple and immediately, I thought, of course, they should have this right – that is fair. People with a gay preference is the norm for at least 1-2% of the population ever since we have had written historical records. The buck stops at marriage for me.
I am concerned that Canadians have become stupid with respect to raising children. The research is starting to come out that kids do best with a dad and a mom. The divorce/women lobby tried to hide the fact that splits and blended families were great, as were single moms and whatever. Some 2nd marriages/singles do work, but this is not a good model. Yes, true, dysfunctional families are bad, but the split up does not often fix them.
Ergo, I still like the civic commitment of marriage (religious if you want) between a man and a woman who love each other. Living with someone and raising kids is both very rewarding and VERY challenging, but it is the way forward.
As for my gay friends, I would be happy to celebrate their commitment to be with each other in a union in a civic ceremony.
This simply is not a marriage in my mind, though.
Anyway, this is a silent person with no voice in the politically correct Canada of today-speak.
Who the hell is equal, anyway??
“Young people don’t care?”
Yes, that increasingly appears to be the case.
“Or is it more accurate to say that they have been indoctrinated by public education, complete with travelling drama groups who visit the schools, promoting this crap, with NO teaching of the other side…”
Well, we pick up our social values in a number of ways – home, church, school, media, friends, leaders, role models, our own independent thought. I was raised to think of homosexuality as a repugnant evil (in a town, oddly enough, that has become rather well known in Canada for priestly pedophilia). I grew up and changed my mind about that, and my sense is that most of the world is heading in that direction.
“…which is that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
A definition you are most definitely welcome to cherish. Meanwhile, I, and a growing number of people and countries disagree with you.
Once marriage became a civil matter it became an equality rights matter. As far as the state is concerned, marriage isn’t between a man and a woman, it is a legal contract that gives a couple over one thousand benefits and protections (at least in the U.S.)
Some people may find gay marriage silly, but I would imagine that if they had their property taken away from one partner’s parents or siblings after a partner’s death, or were denied hospital visitation for their sick spouse, or denied tax breaks or treated differently under the one thousand other laws governing marriage, they wouldn’t see it as silly at all.
Civil unions have been tried, as in the case of NJ, but they don’t work. It is all well and good for the state government to declare civil unions equal to marriage but that doesn’t mean that other state-contracted agencies or private corporations would have to do the same. Gay couples in New Jersey applying for couples benefits for everything from insurance protection, to city property tax benefits to gym memberships have not been treated equally, even when they present their civil union certificate. They also discovered that they have no legal recourse because there isn’t a body of existing laws, court cases or corporate policy to draw on for protection.
There is already a body of legislation and jurisprudence in place covering marriage-law stretching back for hundreds of years, as said, there isn’t such a corpus for civil unions. That would have to be created from scratch and would take several decades of legislative activity and court cases in order to make these couples “truly” equal. That’s why the gay community wants marriage. It really isn’t to be mean to anti-gay Christians or anyone else. It’s because that is the only way to achieve true equality.
“we 50% are just quiet, given the legislation, and still think it is silly or wrong. Nothing has changed.”
Actually, quite a bit has changed. Not to be crass about it, but a fair number of people on the “no” side have died, and a larger percentage of people on the “yes” side are now of voting/polling age. Several other jurisdictions have legalized same sex marriage, and it’s not much of a surprise anymore; for folks growing up, it’s simply becoming normal, the way that inter-racial marriage stopped being a surprise a generation ago.
Honestly, who cares how popular it is? That is confusing constitutional democracy with mob rule. Do you think it was popular when schools were integrated and segregation laws were overturned? Should the southern states have taken polls and should those poll results have made a difference? The reason we have Constitutions and Bills and Charters of Rights legislation is to protect minorities from the majority.
The majority can’t enforce its tyranny on a minority and define its right to participate fully in society. If anyone should appreciate that, it should be conservatives and Christians. They are rapidly becoming a minority and will one day also rely on these same protections, as gays did to achieve their equality.
And regarding the idea that banning same sex children is best for the children, the Iowa court said it best:
The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite sex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dual gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation— did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.
The rest of their decision chips away at the other arguments. It’s worth a read:
http://www.judicial.state.ia.u.....ummary.pdf
I’m not particularly knowledgeable on the issue, but it seems to me that a same sex couple who adopts have to pass a level of formal scrutiny that biological parents don’t.
BS on that dalton. How is the adoption process different for a gay couple?
What does “priestly pedophilia” have to do with same sex marriage? Nothing!
“Once marriage became a civil matter it became an equality rights matter”. (F Human rights legislation) How true is this!
This is at the core of the 50% of people’s problem – we were doing fine without HR legislation, but have now descended into HR HELL. We want to be fair and nice and you can have your rights, but we actually do NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU CAN REALLY MARRY! Get it yet??
L,
What two consenting adults do that does not directly harm you is pretty much NOE OF YOUR F*ING BUSINESS. Get it yet??
You don’t have to agree with gay marriage or even polygamy. But you have no right to tell anyone else how they can peacefully live their life. Get it yet??
And neither does the state. Get it yet??
How does it feel up there on yer petard?
So, L, what you’re actually saying is:
“We want to be fair and nice and you can have your rights, except for the rights we don’t want to give you. We’ll keep you from having those rights, which are available to anyone who isn’t of your particular group. But we’re giving you SOME rights, so you can’t say we’re discriminating!”
Do you have a problem with gay and lesbian couples using the term “marriage”? Then call it something else in the privacy of your own home. But many gay/lesbian children grew up dreaming that one day they would marry the person they loved, as do many hetero children. It’s this dream from which you wish to bar them. How is that fair?
Gee, the homo’s sure come out from under their rocks whenever there is a gay thread!
Personally speaking
I don’t believe anybody should get tax breaks or perks just for getting married. Also I don’t believe that anybody should automatically have control of their partner’s possessions or their decisions unless a legally binding power of attorney and living will etc is signed.
Heterosexual couples should not be treated differently for legal purposes than any couple of people who embark on a joint venture.
Any couple that wishes to combine secular affairs should sign a contract stipulating conditions and responsibilities and anybody who wishes to do the ceremony thing is free to do that too.
The ceremony can be religious or what ever but it cannot be legally binding in anyway. That way the churches can be free to indulge in what ever degree of intolerance that they wish to without government interference.
And contracts can be renegotiated between partners when issues arise.
The formal name should become what ever the partnership decides to call it, and once the term marriage carries no benefits from the government or more importantly benefits lets see who cares.
Gays have equal rights to marry, as long as they select a person of the opposite sex.
“If gay man has sex with a lesbian in order to and produce a baby how different are they from the rest of us anyway???”
They are not different! If thean and lesbian are living together, this is a simply a libroid “common law” marriage, which was the slippery slope due to the “abuse of women” lobby. It fixes Harebell’s “should” problem re: what do we do about the people who do what they want without signing contracts.
If the gay man just creates a child for his lesbian friend, and the relationship is not close for a lifetime, we call that a “one night stand”. They have just produced an “at risk” child. Children of single parents, with no father or mother figure in the picture tend, on average, to have problems later.
L expectorates:
“Children of single parents, with no father or mother figure in the picture tend, on average, to have problems later.”
Whereas the kids of stable, heterosexual marriages are much more likely to be God-fearing, productive members of society. Oh, wait.
EPIC FAIL!
You know what this site could really use? A preview button.
“BS on that dalton. How is the adoption process different for a gay couple?”
That’s not what I meant, Silvernails. L. expressed concern about the well being of children adopted into a same sex marriage, as opposed to those born to a heterosexual couple. But ANY couple can have a baby, without any scrutiny of their economic capacity, social circumstances, or emotional readiness. A couple seeking to adopt is carefully screened.
“but we actually do NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT YOU CAN REALLY MARRY! Get it yet??”
I think you’ve made your point clear. My point is that your agreement is utterly irrelevant. Same sex couples agree that they can “really marry”. The state agrees that they can “really marry”. Many churches now agree that they can “really marry”. And a growing number of heterosexuals now agree that they can “really marry.” So while you have every right to disagree, your disagreement doesn’t really matter very much.
“Gays have equal rights to marry, as long as they select a person of the opposite sex.”
Well, actually, no. Gays, increasingly have equal rights to marry a person of EITHER sex, and you have the right to remain with the diminishing group who refuse to use the noun “marriage” to describe their union.
“Gee, the homo’s sure come out from under their rocks whenever there is a gay thread!”
Mature, SilverNails. On behalf of my gay and lesbian friends, I take offense at the “under their rocks” part of your comment. They live their lives openly, with their sexuality being about as important to them as mine is to me. That is to say, important, yes, but not having a bearing on their day-to-day work. It’s just a part of who they are.
You know one thing they DON’T do with their time? They don’t try to discriminate against a group whose practices don’t in any way affect them.
I made an accurate observation and nothing more nudger. Just have a look at the number of comments on this homosexual thread. Where are all the gays and their sympathizers when there are other, weightier issues presented on this forum? NOWHERE to be found! Proof that the whole same-sex marriage issue is based on selfishness, greed and self-absorption by the lefties. No surprise whatsoever.
If my version of Christianity isn’t adhered to by everyone and by the laws and rules of society, then my freedom is being infringed!
Silvernails, could you perhaps explain how my participation in this thread reflects my “selfishness, greed and self-absorption”? Since I’m a married heterosexual with children?
Already explained it. Compare the number of comments with MOST other threads. Re-read my comment. I said gays AND their sympathizers. Did someone “accuse” you of being gay?
There are plenty of weak-kneed, white-guilt types helping to push the gay agenda forward. Some even take their children to gay pride parades to watch the bare-assed fools dance down the street.
I’m afraid you missed the question. Since I’m not gay, can you explain to me how my discussion of this issue reflects “selfishness”, “greed” or “self-absorption”? This is not about me.
I’m not gay either…married for 16 years, 3 kids. I simply respect peoples right to live their lives unmolested by authoritarians.
Silvernails is projecting. Or delusional.
“Methinks the lady doth protest too much” if you know what I mean…
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
“Silver Nails”, eh?
Folks, trying to bring the discussion back to the point at hand, I find it interesting that the side of the culture war which supports homosexuals calling their unions marriage are completely ignoring the theme of the video — namely that “gay marriage” would affect the lives of others and therefore protests against such a move are valid if we are only measuring legitimacy on that scale (I don’t, but this is the argument of homosexual proponents). Let us also not forget the Silver Nails has his/her argument accredited by the recent mob-like attacks against supporters of Prop 8 in California — if Christians or conservatives were to violently attack or intimidate their opponents in such a manner, we’d certainly hear The Left screaming for blood (see the much-cited case of the gay high schooler beaten to death about ten years ago). Personally, I’d like to see a little more consistency from social liberals before they go tossing around the various names and labels — it doesn’t lend much credit to your cause!
“the side of the culture war which supports homosexuals calling their unions marriage are completely ignoring the theme of the video — namely that “gay marriage” would affect the lives of others.”
You are mistaken. Starting with the second response (mine), several of us commented specifically on that theme: that the video does not, in fact, describe a single case, but presents a series of vaguely worded anecdotes in which actors describe how “their” lives were impacted – several of which had nothing to do with gay marriage at all.
I’m not sure which “argument” of Silvernails you feel was substantiated by the opposition to proposition – I thought the “homo” remark was just a bit of nasty name calling, to which the folks he was insulting responded pretty civilly.
Dalton, I’m afraid that it is you that is mistaken — the video clearly identifies three arguments of how such a legal change will affect others in society in a negative way (employee right of conscience, state discrimination against specific religious groups and school standards on family). You don’t change such a substantial legal definition and expect it to play out in a vacuum. Fine, the actors didn’t get into a doctoral thesis defense on how each of these will play out, but I’d hope that a side which ran and approved of a spot literally pointing a gun in Canadian faces over the *scary social conservative* “hidden agenda” understands that 30/60-second commercials aren’t where you break out the lecture.
Oh, and seeing how you compare the Vatican with the Taliban, I hardly think you and your colleagues have any leg to stand on over dramatic labels.
Mattew, the video sets out no “argument” at all. An argument is a series of statements intended to establish, through logic, the accuracy of a premise or assertion. The video does not do that. It has actors presenting one line “scary homo” scenarios. These are actors. This is scripted. There is no “argument”; there is, instead, a simple attempt to create fear, exactly the same kind of low-level propaganda you describe in the case of the “scary Stephen Harper” ads you cite.
“I’d hope that a side…”
A “side”? Sorry, I don’t choose to be identified with “sides”. I’m talking about a specific issue.
On the Vatican and the Taliban – not sure what your point is. Mine was that they are both religions that regard homosexuality as inherently sinful, and that they both seek to impose their view on society at large, not simply within their community. Do you disagree with that?
Dalton, please remember who you’re talking to — I know that one of your tactics is to create false environments in which your arguments look naturally attractive. Cases in point: your definition of argument is academic, but it is far too restrictive to include what the common vernacular contains; for someone who so piously refuses to take sides, you’re certainly consistent in your views (which is to your credit, but don’t pretend to be neutral!); and of course there is the Taliban/Vatican connection — let’s keep in mind, shall we, that you’d be quite ready to frown upon anyone who made any connection between Hitler and PETA (they’re both associated with vegetarian beliefs). So to put things straight, I disagree completely with your strawman arguments, and if we can’t overcome that, there’s no sense in haggling over the details.
“Your definition of argument is academic, but it is far too restrictive to include what the common vernacular contains.”
You are at liberty to use any word you like to characterize the video. I myself wouldn’t call it an “argument”, but you can if you want. My point is this: that a series of actors are presenting one sentence “scary homo” nuggets and suggesting that these represent a threat to the viewer. To say that “same sex marriage is going to lead to you losing your job!” is not an “argument’ – it’s simple fearmongering.
You’ve been living in a country that allows same sex marriage for some time now. How have you seen it impact on you? I have to tell you, I haven’t noticed any difference. Nor do I expect to.
“for someone who so piously refuses to take sides, you’re certainly consistent in your views (which is to your credit, but don’t pretend to be neutral!)”
I am talking sides on this issue, Matthew, and I am not neutral on this issue. You noted the silliness of the Liberal scare ads, and agree: those were silly, and dishonest, and manipulative, and so is this one.
I understand it’s difficult for you to acknowledge the similarities between the Vatican and the Taliban in their desire to impose their disapproval of homosexuality beyond the boundaries of their own community, and I understand your only option is to evade the question. It was more for your other readers to ponder.
As for the ad itself – interestingly, it share a common trait with a lot of social conservative messaging, in that it seems primarily directed to the already convinced. The leak of the demo tapes seems to have clinched its failure: it was referred to amusingly on one media site as “such clumsy propaganda that I thought it was a parody.”
Until social conservatives can come up with actual quantifiable negative impacts on society, there is no reason to take their message on gay marriage seriously.