Danger Lurking in Duck Dynasty Debacle

The backlash against GLAAD and A&E over the firing of Phil Robertson while encouraging, has also exposed a serious danger lurking in the way some conservatives are looking to homosexuals for support for our position. Laura Ingram had some “gay” writer on her show, and let him get away with characterizing Phil Robertson‘s comments as bigotry. Lots of pro-family people are quoting Brandon Ambrosino’s article in Time http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/and open lesbian Camille Paglia has also written a widely distributed piece.

I’m not against these people speaking their minds just because I oppose their lifestyle, but I am against the phenomenon of pro-family people thinking they are bolstering our arguments by using unrepentant “gays” as sources.

First, we never hear from these supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals unless it’s to do damage control to protect their agenda (which is to fully legitimize homosexuality in society). We saw the same thing occur in 2012 when the “liberal” homosexual attack on Chic-Fil-A in 2012 sparked a national backlash. Whenever the more progressive wing of the “gay” movement goes too fast and threatens the success of the LGBT marketing strategy, the “conservatives” jump into the spotlight to soothe the public nerves. Why should we help them accomplish that?

Second, we need to recognize that the supposed “liberal” vs. “conservative” polarity in the homosexual alliance is a cleverly crafted illusion to infiltrate the pro-family movement. Of course there are some genuine political and ideological differences among homosexuals, but do not deceived, these cosmetic differences are all subsumed within the common goal of conquest of Christian civilization.

We must remember that the “gay” movement is a single, united cult of cultural Marxists, following the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic.

Our thesis is the truth of the Bible: homosexuality is condemned by God as an abomination.

Any “synthesis” of these two contradictory premises is abandonment of the thesis and an outright rejection of the truth of God. “What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?” asked Paul rhetorically in 2 Corinthians 6:15.

Our embrace of people like Tammy Bruce and Camille Paglia (as brilliant as the latter may be to quote on feminist issues) is the “synthesis” phase of the Hegelian dialectic and poisonous to our theology and agenda.

The rise of “conservative” homosexuals is a ruse to sucker us into endorsing “gay rights” in a slightly different form. Think about it for a moment. If these people were truly on our side politically or ideologically they would consider their homosexual inclinations a private matter and a challenge to be overcome, and never publicly identify as “gay.”

Lets have compassion for homosexuals but never align ourselves with them politically or give them a platform to legitimize their lifestyle. Anyone who self-identifies as a unrepentant homosexual is an enemy of the truth, no matter how “conservative” they may sound. Love them as lost sheep, but hate the false premise they live their lives by.

Remember, the Marxist dialectic was taught as a dance to Soviet children: two steps forward, one step back equals a net gain of one step. The “progressive” homosexual agenda represents the two steps forward. The “conservative” homosexual “counter-faction” is one step back. When we endorse “conservative gays” we are helping the entire “gay” movement to advance at the expense of the Bible. Lets not dance with the devil!

The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.

However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women, often prostitutes. Sort of ironical that today a gay man doesn’t sleep with women. :-) Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man. Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.

Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.

By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and most still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical sounding and is often thought of as offensive among gay people due to sounding like a disorder. As such, it was common amongst themselves to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s). At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay. Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.

Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.

Not satisfied with simply changing its definition once a century, as early as the 1980s a new definition for the word gay started popping up among American youth where now something gay could either mean a homosexual or something that is “lame” or “stupid” or the like. This new definition was originally almost exclusively meant as an insulting term, derogatorily referencing homosexuals.

However, according to a report done by the BBC, most children are still using the word to mean “lame”, but now with having nothing to do with sexuality of any sort and also not generally meant as an insulting term against homosexuals. Now it is used more to the effect of just saying, for instance, “That movie was gay” as in stupid, but having nothing to do with homosexuality in their minds and not generally directed at people (thus not supposedly meant to be offensive to the gay community). Whereas the origins of this new “lame” or “stupid” definition were most definitely meant to be insulting and were primarily directed at people.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/

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.