The Seven Arrows Of The Sodomite
From the (protestant) blog Wisdom for Life, an interesting contribution about the strategy used by sodomites to try to get acceptance for their perversion.
I copy and paste the seven points in their entirety,
1. Using the language of civil rights: For several decades we’ve heard increased association of gay rights with battles for racial and gender equality. A desire for homosexual sex (we’re told) is an inborn condition, not a choice. Although a false comparison, the aim is to view gays and lesbians as we would people of different race. If successful, those who oppose gay marriage will be viewed as racists.
2. Using accusations of hate and irrational fear: The goal has been to convince the public that opponents of gay marriage are bigoted hate-mongers with irrational phobias. They are homophobic and full of venomous prejudice — not just people who choose to see things differently. They are portrayed as irrational religious fanatics who destroy civility. Supporters of traditional marriage are presented as dangerous people who cling to bigoted ancient laws of a by-gone era.
3. Exposing heterosexual hypocrisy: Attention is drawn to marriage as a failing institution among heterosexuals. This is partly done to make Christians appear to be hypocritical for opposing gay marriage when they have their own marriage crisis. It’s simply an effort to silence opposition to gay marriage. It also assumes that gay marriage will improve the marriage scene.
4. Using the language of justice: In a twisted way, radicals gay activists portray opponents of gay marriage as perpetrators of injustice. They are accused of inequity for denying loving people the opportunities to have the same rights and freedoms others enjoy. The laws that protect all citizens are sufficient but gay activists demand special laws for their lifestyle choices.
5. Using the language of religion: Connecting gay rights to religious freedom and claiming God’s approval of gay relationships is another tactic. They scold us for failing to understand that religion is about love and tolerance. Although every major faith for most of history denounced homosexual behavior, they suggest that it’s the view of a fringe group of fundamentalists. They even deceptively portray Jesus as favoring gay marriage based on a supposed argument from silence (see: Matthew 19:3-9).
6. Playing the victim card: Every crime or death that can be connected in any measure to opposition to homosexuality is used to demand special laws to protect them from violence. They want us to believe that all opposition to gay marriage incites hate and violence, even causing suicides. This has played on the gullibility of Christians and silenced too many of them.
7. Using judicial coercion: Since State after State has approved constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, radicals gay activists bully Americans into acceptance of gay marriage by judicial force. In Massachusetts four justices unilaterally imposed their acceptance of gay marriage on the entire state (even though surveys indicated that the majority of residents did not favor gay marriage).
Whilst no one of these points is new or original (in the end, the author is describing commonly used strategies), the concise but complete list makes of this a very interesting reading, to which not much is to add.
I only allow myself here to point out to a couple of concepts I have expressed several times in the past:
1. Words have a meaning. Perverts and evil people will always try to pervert the meaning of a word to push their agenda. No they are not “gay”. Gay, my foot. They are very sad, frustrated, suicidal faggots. I could go on.
2. It is illusory – not to say: of dubious virility – to think that confrontations of these kind should be run like a bunch of well-behaved convent school girls oh so mindful that no one gets “emotionally hurt”. The battle must be fought as such battles were always fought before journalism got to be dominated by women and sodomites: with ferocious satire, and burying the enemy under a mountain of ridicule.
Which is, in this case, not really difficult.