The American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry

Shouting Down the Opposition

Become an insider.
Sign up for our emails.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

Homosexuals decry anti-homosexual rhetoric because they believe it leads to anti-homosexual violence. There is no evidence to support this claim. Christians are ridiculed and taunted every day in America. Do we shout down the opposition, call for “hate-law” legislation, or throw blood and condoms at the opposition? If you can’t take it, then pack your bags and go home.

The goal of homosexuals is to silence all debate on the topic. There is only one way, the “gay way.” There’s the story of how “gay” activists “terrorized” a Focus on the Family meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, in November 2005. “ The anger, rage and hatred were indescribable,” one conference participant told Christian Civic League of Maine.[1] What did the police do to stop the harassing protest? Nothing. If pro-life activists had used similar tactics at an abortuary, the full weight of the law would have been leveled against them.

An article that appeared in the February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News called for a “gay revolution” that would work to close “all churches” that condemned the homosexual lifestyle. The author went on to write: “We shall sodomize your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.”[2] From the start, the tactic has been to silence all opposition to homosexuality and to portray homosexual relationships as mainstream. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authors of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s, laid out the strategy. “Madsen said plans must also be drawn up to deal with ‘the entrenched enemy,’ which might persist in resisting even in the face of the preliminary schemes. They said: ‘At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights—long after other gay ads have become commonplace—it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.’”[3]

As a side note, it’s interesting that homosexuals point out that “there are 58 countries in the world where you can be incarcerated for life or worse for being identified as gay, for intimacy with someone of the same sex or even associating with ‘homosexuals.’”[4] When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned all anti-sodomy laws in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case , a majority of justices appealed to “international law” to make their case. The amicus brief filed by Human Rights Watch “argues that the principles of privacy and equal protection being examined by the court should be interpreted in light of the rulings of foreign and international courts of nations with similar histories, legal systems, and political cultures.”[5] How can this be when homosexuals themselves say that there are “58 countries in the world” where homosexuality is outlawed? Like protestations by homosexuals of anti-homosexual rhetoric, a majority of members of the court are selective in their use of international law. They begin with a pro-homosexual predisposition and then go “nation shopping” to find legal decisions that agree with their pre-determined views. They then claim that international law is on its side. A similar tactic is followed by the pro-abortion wing of the court. Justice Antonin Scalia writes:

According to the United Nations, the United States is now one of only fifty-three countries classified as allowing abortion on demand, versus one hundred and thirty-nine countries allowing it only under particular circumstances, or not at all. Among those countries the UN classified—this is in 2001—as not allowing abortion on demand were the United Kingdom, Finland, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and virtually all of South America. Yet the court has generally ignored foreign law in its abortion cases. Casey does not mention it all; Roe discusses only modern British law—which, in any event, is more restrictive than what Roe held. I will become a believer in the ingenuousness—though never in the propriety—of the Court’s newfound respect for the wisdom of foreign minds when it applies that wisdom in the abortion cases.[6]

Like abortionists, homosexuals pick and choose what outrages them and argue accordingly. They decry anti-homosexual rhetoric but have no problem using some of the most vicious rhetoric to smear and vilify those who oppose them. International law is a standard as long as judges get to pick the law that supports their cause.

Endnotes:

[1] “Activists ‘terrorize’ ex-‘gay’ conference” (November 2, 2005)
[2] Quoted in Ed Vitagliano, “Homosexual Activists’ War Against Christianity” (February 21, 2006)
[3] Vitagliano, “Homosexual Activists’ War Against Christianity.”
[4] Glen Murray, “Murder and abuse of gays is becoming endemic” (March 26, 2006)
[5] http://hrw.org/press/2003/07/hrw-amicusbrief.htm
[6] Antonin Scalia, “International Law in American Courts,” The American Enterprise Institute (February 21, 2006)

Filed under: , , ,

Join the email family.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

Join the support family.

Donate Now
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram
The American Vision

FREE
VIEW