The Gay Strategy: Cooking the Frog

When you want to cook a frog, they say, don’t throw it into boiling water, since it will only jump out. Instead, place Froggie in a pot with tepid water and, ever so slowly, continue to increase the heat. When the poor fellow finally realizes he is being cooked, he’ll have no more strength to resist.

Radical gay activists must have taken a cue from this tale, because it seems to be the tactic of choice for advancing their cause: the normalization of homosexuality in Western culture.

Normalizing homosexuality would at first seem to be a quixotic task, given that thousands of years of human social history, religious teachings and civil law militate against it. This pedigree has not stopped the activists, however.

Over the past 30 years, gay advocacy groups have made themselves into a powerful political force, determined to win the day even if it means tearing down age-old existing traditions.

Euphemistically redefining “gay” to mean “homosexual” and hitching their wagon to the civil rights movement, gay organizations regard disagreement or disapproval of their views as outright “discrimination,” a result of “sexism,” “gender stereotyping,” or plain old (but inaccurate) “homophobia.”

To achieve their goals, these groups use every weapon in their arsenal: litigation, liberal theology, legislative activism, medical uncertainties, economic pressure and a mob of literati that tout the homosexual lifestyle in newspaper columns, movies, on radio talk shows and with TV comedies and august PBS documentaries.

It has become impossible for “straight” society to ignore this activism because it is constantly being bombarded on all sides by issues that grab the headlines: judicial challenges to marriage; ordination of gay clerics; priest pedophiles; affirmative action or special schools for gays; or gays as role models and arbiters of fashion.

It has also become increasingly difficult for those who disagree with all the cant surrounding this movement to have their voices heard because of self-censorship by the media. Whereas gay columnists are published on a regular basis, ostensibly to appeal to like-minded readers, where is the column by a writer with a principled stand against homosexuality?

Why must people with an aversion to homosexual aims be derided as throwbacks, haters or religious fanatics? Most reasonable persons today would not discriminate against gays, unless they push the envelope too far.

But this is exactly what is happening. In their zeal to normalize what is essentially deviant behavior, the most radical thinkers in the movement are trying to destroy the institution of heterosexual, monogamous marriage as currently defined by law.

The first line of attack is the demand for equal treatment with regard to the economic benefits, insurance coverage, hospital visitation rights and other things that accrue to married couples. Monogamous relationships are a secondary and, according to some studies, distant concern, given the rampant promiscuity in the gay community.

The reason that government officially sanctions monogamous, heterosexual marriage as a social institution is to provide an ideal framework for conceiving and raising children. Regardless if marriages fail, this is still the ideal to which couples aspire. When marriages with children fail, the children suffer.

Once heterosexual marriage is redefined by government to include same-sex partners, the whole institution loses its social relevance. Any persons who want to live together can claim a marriage right, even if only for financial benefits. Next, polygamists and group marriage advocates (polyamorists) will start demanding their right to legal sanction.

If this prospect causes alarm, then it is time for society at large to act; gays will continue to press forward until their demands are met. And although morality is certainly an issue, don’t count on the media or the twisted popular culture to mention it.

Pressure from the pulpit won’t help either, since religious motivation is looked on skeptically as a personal whim on the part of the believer, or at worst, as an another example of intolerant fanaticism.

Trouble is, people today are afraid to take a stand – afraid of being against political correctness, afraid of being called a homophobe or bigot or whatever insult will be hurled.

My view is that, whatever the reason, homosexuality is aberrant behavior – always has been, always will be. For this reason alone, same-sex marriages should be prohibited, and children should not be raised by gay couples, regardless how well-intentioned.

If the rest of society fails to act on its own behalf on this issue, it will find itself like the aforementioned frog, too late to do anything about it.

Barrett Kalellis is a columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.

Not much can be added to that statement. Too bad so many of the churches have abrogated their responsibility in opposition. Only the Catholic Church has begun to make a move, ponderous, but a move nonetheless.

The homosexuals have learned from the failures of the French Revolution and Marxism-Leninism.

One should recall that, while not approving homosexuality, both the French Revolution and the Marxist-Leninist revolutions and coups had a radically anti-religious (other than the eschatology introduced by the revolutions) program. Attacks on marraige and the family as generally known and understood at the time were always part of the agenda.

As we know, the radical reforms of the French Revolution in religion, marriage and such did not take hold. The Marxists, in power much longer than the French radical revolutionaries, had more success. However, the institution of the family has been recovering in the former Soviet bloc countires, as have the churches.

The queers know if they force their agenda too quickly, there will be a backlash, so they've been going somewhat slowly, unitl recently.

I've always opposed persecution of gays, but I'm getting to the point where tolerance is stretched. I wouldn't be part of it, but I sure wouldn't shed too many tears if someone else ran all the gays out of the county.

The Churches are being put in a position of having to call their most loyal members religious nuts over the issues of homosexual marriage and church leadership.

It will soon sink in that David Geffin is not going to drop money into the collection plate, and the now absent religious nuts did.

What liberals don't realize is that people view certain classes of people negatively, not because of arbitrary social rules or unreasonable hatred in many cases but often for good reason. They tried to change the name and image of "bums" and "vagrants" to "homeless people". After more than a decade of using the new term, do you have any more desire for a "homeless person" to sit next to you on a subway than a "bum" or "vagrant"? Of course not, because the thing described has not become any more desirable. The same will be true of gays. Many gays are harmless and they all certainly shouldn't be physically abused, but there is a lot of strange behavior practiced by gays (bondage, promiscuity, etc.) that is going to remain strange no matter how they spin things. Sure, they can try to put a nice face on things (as the press did trying to spin "homeless people" as out of work families and pleasant people) but the truth will eventually come out. Unless gays change how they live and behave, the negative stereotypes will reappear. If they are lucky, they won't reappear as a part of a nasty backlash but in an inverse version of the cooking frog.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.