From their own mouths, Pt 1: LGBT Lobby plans to 'wholly transform the definition of family'
ROME, February 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – “Transforming the very fabric of society;” and “radically reordering society’s view of reality”: these are what “being queer” means to the ideologues behind the homosexual political movement that is currently sweeping through legislatures around the world. Is this the insane ranting of a right-wing Christian conspiracy theorist? Is it yet another “attack” by wicked Pope Benedict XVI on innocent gays doing nothing more than seeking a better place in society?
No, they’re the assertions by a lesbian academic about the real purpose and goal of the LGBT political movement.
When Christians and other opponents of the homosexual agenda say this, we hear the screeching of the media pundits around the world. It’s all about equality! Equality!! About overcoming centuries of mindless prejudice…! We hear it so often, we could practically write the script ourselves.
But the quotes above are from the late lesbian homosexual thinker and activist Paula Ettelbrick, who was not the only member of the homosexual movement to forthrightly lay out the plan. As far back as the late 1980s, well before “gay marriage” was a glimmer in the eye of the most radical leftist politician, she wrote, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”
“We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality,” she wrote.
In case there were still any question whether the entire “gay marriage” political debacle was about “equality,” Ettelbrick went on to say in a1989 article in OUT/LOOK – entitled,“Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” – that though she objected to the idea of same-sex “marriage” itself, the fight was still useful as a political ploy. Although she believed homosexuals are “fundamentally different” from straight people and should not want to buy into our patriarchal and inherently oppressive institutions, she counseled, “People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits.”
Other lesbian academics have been equally open about the real goals.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
Nan Hunter, a professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law (yes, there is such a publication) that the purpose of legalizing “gay marriage” was to “destabilize marriage’s gendered definition, thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage, thereby subverting its power differential.”
Indeed, she chronicles efforts to force the issue by activists dating back to the early 1970s.
Michelangelo Signorile wrote in OUT magazine in 1994, “A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”
He added, “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
In case these seem merely like the wild rantings of obscure academics speaking only to the bats in their ivory belfries, another more recent admission comes from PinkNews, the main online journal of the homosexual movement in Britain.
Chris Ashford, a Reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland, said on Friday that, although winning the “gay marriage” fight has been a major step forward for the movement, it ain’t over yet.
Britain’s leading gay political lobby, Stonewall, has said that with the passage of the bill (yes, it’s more or less a foregone conclusion, and has been since it was announced) the political fight will be over. Equality achieved.
What does “equality” look like? “It looks like being ‘normal,’ being the ‘same’ as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority…We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship…stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.”
But, Ashford says, “Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure.”
“There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on – yes sexual – that’s what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign – and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalization of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only ‘couples’ might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind,” he wrote.
The “gay marriage” bill, he concludes, “is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step – albeit a significant one – on a never-ending journey.”
While most of the mainstream media and the political class, whether out of fear of reprisal or genuine collusion, rigidly restrict the discussion to topics of “rights” and “equality.” And it has certainly worked. The “equality” tactic has been the strongest weapon in the movement’s political arsenal when pointed at the generalized fear in western societies of being seen to be “discriminatory,” a fear that has metastasized into a national mental pathology in Britain.
We are told that it is “unfair” to “restrict” marriage to “heterosexual couples,” as though we are all in perfect lockstep agreement that there is any other kind. We are accused, strangely, of “racism” and “discrimination” when we so much as ask difficult questions.
So terrorized have the Western peoples become of being called these schoolyard names, again particularly in Britain, that I have witnessed ordinary citizens censor their thoughts, halting in mid-sentence in a private discussion out of fear that they may say something unacceptable.
This terror – essentially a grotesque swelling of the English phobia of making a social faux pas – is the origin of the odd phenomenon of straights turning suspected homophobes over to the authorities for punishment:
Municipal governments sacking and disciplining employees who refuse to play along;
Teachers screaming threats at school children and turning them over to police for using a term like “gay-boy”;
Elderly B&B owners being sued and put out of business for refusing a bed to gay men;
Parents threatened with prosecution and jailed when they object to their children being taught about the joys of gay sex in school.
Perhaps we should redefine “homophobia” to mean the, largely justified, terror of offending homosexualist bullies.
When Pope Benedict XVI, one of a tiny handful of leaders on the global stage willing to talk about what we’re really talking about, said that the pressure for “gay marriage” in the West “threatens the future of humanity,” the world’s media went into a screaming frenzy.
But here are the homosexuals themselves saying exactly the same thing, and the media is standing by with the tissues. It makes the question about who is working for whom redundant.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.