The “Hate” Charge Is Starting to Wear Thin

Recently, McDonalds’s Corporation publicly announced their support for the gay agenda, causing no small stir among millions of people who oppose their action. One of the groups joining the fight against McDonald’s is the American Family Association, headed up by Donald Wildmon. He has called for a national boycott of the fast food chain because he believes that their decision is anti-family. Here is an excerpt of his report on the matter:

“Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald’s has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.

[American Family Association] AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald’s restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.

In response to the boycott, McDonald’s spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying “…hatred has no place in our culture.” McDonald’s has decided to adopt the “hate” theme used by gay activist groups for years.

Whitman went on to say, “We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment.” Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald’s choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda.”

Crying “hate speech” has become the standard, knee-jerk reaction against those who cannot conscientiously support the gay agenda or the gay lifestyle.  It illustrates how those who hold traditional beliefs have increasingly become objects of ridicule. Reason, logic, common sense or even decent respect no longer has a place in this dialogue.  Either believe them or die.  No middle ground exists.

Here is my dilemma: Think of two American citizens walking down the street. They may or may not be members of a minority. They may or may not belong to a protected class. In the eyes of the law, they are political equals. Both of them have opinions. One is allowed to express his or her opinion. The other is not. Both of them have religious beliefs. One is permitted to articulate and practice his or her beliefs. The other is not. Both of them have convictions about the way life should be lived. One is permitted to exercise his or her convictions. The other is not. The first is considered loving. The second is considered hateful. So much for political equality.

But is this right? Of course not. But it doesn’t matter anymore. Emotion now rules the day. If a certain segment of society may successfully be characterized as hateful, then no amount of reason or logic can change the prevailing opinion. When a vocal, powerful, wealthy and well-connected minority flexes its muscles, the reasoning process flies out the window.

The term, “gay agenda” is itself rejected by much of the gay community. So, by using the terminology, the speaker or writer has already identified himself or herself as being “homophobic.” But the question is still legitimate. Is there a so-called “gay agenda?” Call it what you will, the gay activist movement does indeed have certain political goals that it has long championed. In 1972, they called it the “Gay Rights Platform.” Here are two of the demands made in their document:

• “Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
• “Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit

During the 1987 March on Washington by gay activists, additional demands were made:

• The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.
• Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools [should be eliminated].
• The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.
• Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples.

J. Matt Barber, writing for Concerned Women for America exposes the objectives of gay activist even further. He writes:

“Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the “gay” agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled, “The Gay Agenda”:

• On “hate crimes” laws: “Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.”
• On “hate thoughts” and “hate speech” laws: “Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.”
• On influencing public policy: “Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.”
• On “same-sex marriage”: “Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”
• On “gays” in the Church: “Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.”

The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the “gay” agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

The final objective, “make victimizers look bad” may be translated in this way. Anyone who opposes the gay lifestyle in any way, shape or form must be labeled as a hater, abuser and a victimizer. Little by little, the code language of those who intend to dismantle the traditional and conventional ideals of culture is starting to show through. By “pluralism” they do not mean that different viewpoints should be tolerated. They meant that no one should be against any viewpoint held by any other person in the world. By “diversity” they do not mean that all persuasions should be respected and honored. They mean that no one has the right to speak against any other persuasion in existence (whether it be religion, political preference or sexual orientation). By “tolerance” they do not mean that there is room in the world for everybody. They mean that there is no room whatsoever for intolerance.

Let me be clear. I do not hate homosexuals. I have profound disagreements with their lifestyle, their convictions, their morality and their activist agenda. To call this hatred is not an honest, reasonable assessment. The “hate” charge is a cold, calculated, politically designed vilification that has no sensitivity to my rights to hold such views. I believe that hatred is in the heart. How dare anyone judge my heart? How dare anyone make a broad, sweeping generalization about my deepest feelings? How can anyone know my motives and intents? How can anyone but God know what I’m all about?

No. The hate charge doesn’t work any more. It is tired. It is worn out. It is a lazy, jaded, clichéd phrase that rolls too conveniently off the tongues of the activists. Their propensity to burst forth in angry vituperations against supposed “homophobes” makes me wonder if they are the ones who deserve the hate charge instead of their opponents. Maybe they just don’t like to be contradicted. Or…maybe they are the ones who literally seethe with hatred against anyone who condemns their behavior. One only needs to peruse their blogs to confirm this view. Namecalling like “Nazis” and the “American Taliban”, and words and phrases like “dehumanizing”, “absolutely unhinged element” and a ton of other pejorative recriminations against “homophobes” may be found all over their writings.

A growing body of evidence, however, seems to side against the claims of gay activists. One such relatively new example is mentioned in the following press release from Love In Action, International Inc.

Memphis,TN: Love In Action International Inc., the world’s oldest and most respected ministry to men and women struggling with unwanted sexual identities and behaviors, gives high praise for the recently published three-year study by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse: Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (ISBN-10: 083082846X).

The scientific findings revealed in this study report that change from homosexual orientation is possible for some individuals. This study confirms what Love In Action has long held to be true.

Love in Action President/ CEO Reverend John J. Smid states, “God always provides a way of escape from the sin that entangles us. I am thrilled there is finally scientific research which compliments the tremendous freedom that I have experienced personally and that I have witnessed in others during my 20 years with Love in Action International. I hope this study will open the door for more unbiased research of this caliber.”

Reject the study if you so choose, but at least acknowledge that a legitimate opposing viewpoint exists and that it has enough documentation and corroborating evidence to make it plausible. That’s not based on a hate motive. That’s not a harebrained, trigger-fingered, redneck inanity. That position and belief derives from credible thinking and reasoning. For this particular piece, I do not argue from the standpoint of the Bible. I only wonder where my bill of rights went. Do I only have the freedom to believe what a certain group in society says I must believe? So it would seem.

A fair warning is in order to anyone who does not agree with the gay agenda. Soon, you will not have freedom of speech, freedom of press or freedom of religion. Their ultimate goal is to totally squelch the anti-gay sentiment. Every day, they get closer to their target.

Comments

[Tim Garcia]

There is no "gay agenda." Gays are just as diverse in political, philosophical, and cultural outlook as heterosexuals. I have plenty of Log Cabin Republican friends to attest to this. =]

Same-sex marriage will not destroy marriage; marriage has already been irreparably damaged for the masses by divorce, and this required no help from the gays. The same people who clamored for a Federal Marriage Amendment, I wager, are not simultaneously calling for a similar amendment to make divorce illegal, and yet this has done more damage to families BY FAR than homosexuals trying to build their own relationships.

Each person is responsible for his own conduct, and his own relationships, including, indeed, his or her own marriage; just because someone else is wrecking theirs, doesn't justify blaming them for one's own failure in the institution. This is just common sense. :)