Last Updated:Friday - 09/24/2010

A calculated agenda of moral subversion

An interesting statistic crossed my virtual "desktop" recently. According to a February Gallup poll, 50 per cent of Americans now think homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, compared with just 34 per cent who thought so in 1982.

Such a realignment of the moral landscape over such a short time begs the question of why. Some attribute the change to "education." Others are inclined to suggest that brainwashing more aptly characterizes the shift.

Fifty or 60 years ago, a high-90s percentile of North America's population unequivocally rejected homosexual activity on moral grounds.

The great-grandparents and grandparents of those in the vanguard of the gay rights movement would have considered homosexual acts as self-evidently wicked and repugnant, and people who engaged in such acts to be at best mentally ill and at worst totally depraved.

Have right and wrong suddenly changed in half a century, after 5,000 years of stasis in Judeo-Christian moral understanding? I think not.

However, popular moral consensus has been subverted by relentless propagandizing, especially of youth.

In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen cite as a central strategy: Portray homosexuals as victims, an oppressed minority groaning under the yoke of heterosexist tyranny.

A frequently reprinted 1987 Guide Magazine article by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill proposes six-step progression to "homosexual liberation," including specific strategies for turning the public against the Christian Church, and the Church against itself.

"When conservative churches condemn gays," write Kirk and Pill, "we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. . . . We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.

"Against the mighty pull of institutional religion one must set the mightier draw of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion . . . that alliance can work again here."

It appears to be working famously. Newly-elected California Gov. Gray Davis has voiced support for pro-gay legislation like AB222, a sweeping bill that would mandate instruction on tolerance of homosexuality in public schools, where children would be taught that homosexuality is simply one among several equally healthy and valid lifestyles, with only vague religious exclusions.

Gay activists have succeeded in convincing a significant proportion of the public that to discriminate against people because of their sexual activities (voluntary behaviour, whatever its motivation) is equivalent to discriminating because of skin colour (an involuntary characteristic).

Verbal or physical abuse of homosexuals is wrong, but it does not follow that homosexualism must be accepted as a commendable lifestyle.

"'Homophobic' bigotry," gay militants retort.

Not at all, replies University of Manitoba professor of anthropology Dr. Hymie Rubenstein.

"Although there is no such scientifically established pathological fear called 'homophobia,'" says Rubenstein, "this has not prevented gay and lesbian activists from misusing science in their hugely successful effort to portray those who do not support all of their demands . . . as being right-wing Christian bigots simply because they do not share the activists' values. . . .

"If there is a paranoid fear, it is a terrible 'liberal' anxiety of offending homosexuals by implying that their lifestyle is any less worthy of praise than the lifestyle of married people."

But sex is a private matter, no business of anyone not directly involved, the argument goes.

Rubenstein replies: "Every civilized society that has failed to recognize that the naturally promiscuous human male has to be constrained by strong moral sanctions has paid the price, as our own society is now paying with growing rates of adultery, pornography, child prostitution, sexually-transmitted disease, illegitimacy, divorce, suicide and single-parenthood."

If society has no right to condemn deviant sexual practices of its citizens, then it should also have no right to condemn incest, pedophilia, rape necrophilia and bestiality, he concludes.

Rubenstein warns: "A concern with rooting out homophobia is a classic example of the state telling ordinary citizens what to think and what to believe.

"This makes the politically correct human rights commissions happy. But it is very, very dangerous in a democratic society and should be resisted by all freedom-loving people."

Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 -- Western Catholic Reporter