I haven't given out one of these in a while, but I came across this column from the Worldview Weekend site and it just cries out for a Robert O'Brien Trophy (formerly the Idiot of the Month Award) for the author. This is simply one of the most inane examples of ignorance on display that you will ever come across. It begins with him calling homosexuality "the third sex", which is simply bizarre, and complaining about the "homosexual mafia" allegedly running DC. And then it actually gets worse.
Homosexuality, the third sex, is rampant throughout America as the homosexual mafia moves ever closer to our Federal capital for its final push toward respectability and acceptance. And not just acceptance, but homosexuals are demanding praise for their enlightened sexual proclivities and depravities.
Really? Could you possibly quote someone actually demanding praise for being gay? No? I didn't think so.
Homosexuals consider male/male sex superior to male/female sex.
Do they? Or do they just consider it their own preference? And what about homosexual females? Do they also consider male/male sex superior? Oh, that's right. We don't talk about female homosexuals, only male homosexuals. Curious, that.
Homosexuals have literally moved from Alfred Kinsey's sex labs in Bloomington, Indiana to the power centers of America in a generation.
It always makes me laugh when people use the word "literally" when they actually mean the opposite of it. Noebel doesn't literally believe that homosexuals were created in Kinsey's lab, or that they all lived in Kinsey's lab, and then were sent out to infiltrate the "power centers". At least, I hope he doesn't. That would be idiotic even by the standards of this already idiotic article.
The homosexuals fought to have the practice of sodomy removed from various state laws which made their disgusting practices illegal. Thanks to the U. S. Supreme Court (Lawrence et. al. vs. Texas) sodomy is now considered a legal sexual nicety. Come to think about it prayer, the Bible, the 10 Commandments and God may well be illegal, but sodomy is not. Has America fallen for the devil's spin or no?
No, you have fallen for the spin of stupidity. Prayer is not illegal in this country, nor is the Bible. Tens of millions of people pray every day, while holding their Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments. There is a difference between prohibiting governments from endorsing or requiring those things and "making them illegal". Only a fool or a demagogue would miss that distinction. Which are you, Mr. Noebel?
It was just yesterday when the homosexuals told us all they wanted was to be left alone? The next day they said they wanted their sexual behavior considered lawful. The day following they really got organized and infiltrated the media, Hollywood, churches, schools, major corporations and government. Today, they want the right to marry, adopt children and run for president where the first lady will be "lover."
But you see, all of that is part of being "left alone." Being left alone means not having legal restrictions placed on them that aren't placed on others. That means not being thrown in jail for having consensual sex with their partner. It means being able to marry their partner, adopt children and run for office, just like anyone else can do. That's all part of being left alone.
Even the famous British historian, Paul Johnson, was fooled by their intentions and antics. Johnson relates in his work The Quest for God how he helped bring about the decriminalization of homosexuality thinking that was all the homosexual movement wanted from the heterosexual community. He was fooled. In fact, he was totally naÃ¯ve for he said homosexuality was still to be considered "a great moral evil." That didn't last long.
Paul Johnson is a pseudo-intellectual blowhard extraordinaire. And if you don't believe me, just read the next couple paragraphs where Noebel quotes Johnson:
Says Johnson, "We were proven totally mistaken. Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched. Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance schools, children's homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality, but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views--including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints--on radio and television."
"Thus we began, says Johnson, "by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice [criminalizing homosexual acts] and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims and bent on making fundamental--and to most of us horrifying--changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour."
Yes, how bloody awful. First they stopped throwing gays in jail and the next thing you know they got all uppity and you couldn't fire them from their job just for being gay. Can you believe that? Give them an inch and they take a mile. Weren't they satisfied that we were good enough to stop putting them in prison? Noooo. They had to demand silly rights like....being able to hold a job, make a living and support themselves. We must put a stop to this. The next thing you know they'll be smoking marijuana and going after our white women. Oops, sorry. Got my rants mixed up there.
Now here's where he really goes off the deep end. Not only does he violate Godwin's Law, he gets the argument completely backwards.
What is transpiring in Washington, D. C. is frightenly similar to what transpired in and around Berlin before the fall of the Weimar Republic due in large measure to its moral decadence. Germany's Alfred Kinsey was Magnus Hirschfeld, a homosexual who was known in the gay community of Berlin as 'Tante Magnesia.' He was responsible for the world's first homosexual rights organization and worked to have Germany's laws criminalizing sodomy overturned. Hirschfeld also founded Berlin's "Institute for Sex Science." Like Kinsey, he was feted by the intellectual elite as having superior knowledge about sex and sexual orientation.
He also made Berlin a magnet for homosexuals and decadence was the label slapped on the government and its environs which made it easier for Adolph Hitler to use moral degeneracy as an excuse to replace the government with the German Workers National Socialist Party (Nazi).
Now this is funny. People were calling for gay rights in Germany before Hitler. And people are calling for gay rights in America now. Therefore....but wait, does he not realize that he's taking the exact same position that Hitler did? Well, look at the very next paragraph:
Unknown to most Americans, however, is the fact that the Nazi Party was literally populated with homosexuals. In 1928 the Nazi Party issued a statement in response to a German homosexual rights organization which said in part, "We reject all immorality, especially love between men, because it deprives us of our last chance to free people from the chains of slavery which are keeping it fettered today."
The Nazi party was populated with homosexuals....and to prove that, I'll quote the Nazi Party saying that they reject homosexuality. Of course, the Nazis then also went on to attempt to purge not only their party but all of German society of homosexuals by criminalizing it and throwing them in prison - the very same thing that Noebel is advocating here. Which means he is arguing that homosexuality leads to Naziism while advocating exactly what the Nazis did. Got any pink triangles laying around, Mr. Noebel?
Wow. That was so idiotic it's almost exhausting even to read. Scariest thing: this cretin can vote.
"Homosexual Mafia?!" The possibilities are endless. Think of the "Queer Eye" crew extorting protection money from Manhattan hair salons...then expanding their evil grip to hair salons in the Midwest...what sort of threats would they use?
"Oh my, your son is such a fine example of American manhood! Captain of the football team, dating the best looking cheerleader, and everything! It would be a shame if something happened to make him stop liking football and girls..."
"Do they? Or do they just consider it their own preference? And what about homosexual females? Do they also consider male/male sex superior? Oh, that's right. We don't talk about female homosexuals, only male homosexuals. Curious, that."
Why would we need to talk about female homosexuals? Only guys having sex with each other is gross. Girls having sex with each other is hot.
"...This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality, but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views--including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints--on radio and television."
What? Homosexual quotas in local government? Who ever called for that? I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that excision of objectionable passages in the real world means "please don't brainwash kids with your homophobic nonsense", but "special rights" to "proselytize"? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Is he talking more nonsense of gay "recruitment" (which is of course totally different from the Christian right to proselytize) or is he talking about the belief that gays should be allowed to speak out against homophobia? And--gasp!--they want to be allowed on radio and television! Clearly that's a "special" right--no-one would ever allow Christians on television! It's like beaming the gay straight into your house--there's no defense they can mustered!
Thanks for taking on this article. I read it this morning and was hoping someone would take it on. It is pathetic reasoning and writing.
Next month, since you also read some of the other "writers" on this site, save yourself the bother and nominate the entire site for the O'Brien Award. It'll be easier on the brain cells and blood pressure. Besides that we won't have to take up a collection to get you out of jail for driving to Branson and taking on Brannon Howse. Also it'll save from the brain damaged caused by listening to his music too.
-who has decided that he can find something better to spend money on than go to the event here in the Twin Cities this weekend. I'm thinking most anything would be a better value. Especially since I'll avoid brain damage to myself by not sitting through a David Barton lecture.
Well, since we've been exposed by David Noebel. Ed bow down to me, you must now worship the ground I walk on. If you are good and obey us, we may let you try some male on male action and be forever hooked. As everyone knows gay sex is SO much more exciting and SO much more fulfilling that once you try it you are forever held in its grip.
Seriously have you ever noticed that these guys always seem to think that gay sex is so compelling that just trying it once will make you never want a woman again? They just KNOW it will capture them into the evil lust and sin of hot male on male action. I think that in THEIR case it is true, because if you are homosexual you find even the thought of homosexual sex much more thrilling than straight sex. They just know deep down inside of themselves that they would enjoy it more, what they don't understand that straight men don't have those thoughts.
Male/male sex is superior. They can daisy-chain. And don't have to worry about discussing their feelings afterward.
The "third gender" concept is one that exists in several cultures, for example the "two-spirited" status in some native american cultures or the Hijras in India. However where a "third gender" concept exists it tends to refer not to sexuality or gender attraction, but to an actual state of transgenderism or societally accepted transvestitism in which the members of the "third gender" are in some sense closer to being officially androgenous. Although some aspects of the third gender concept exist within western gay subcultures-- for example, drag queens perform a similar role in some ways-- none of these aspects really come close to constituting adoption of the concept wholesale and there really is not anything analogous to the third gender in American society, unless you count David Bowie.
There's a gay comic whose name I can never remember (Jim something) who has a very funny bit about his father asking him, "What is it that you and your boyfriend do? I mean, what do you actually do with each other?" And his reply is, "Well dad, you know all those things you wish mom would do but she won't? We do that." Brilliant line.
This homophobic diatribe is nothing compared with David Noebel's anti-rock music writings. Find a copy of "Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles" or "The Marxist Minstrals." Even in the sixties this stuff was too hokey.
Well, they're kicking around the idea here in UW that homosexuals (or I think they were getting at the broader term of sexual minorities) ought to have affirmative action on the basis that they are a dscriminated against group akin to say the Blacks.
The College Republicans spoke out against it on the basis that Homosexuality is a choice and they have to suck it up just like every other sub/counter culture group. Which is weird given the whole call for "academic freedom"
Labeling homosesxuality as a third sex may be partly a reference to Kent Philpott's book The Third Sex? published in the mid 1970s. Philpott was the co-founder of one of the original ex-gay ministries, and the book described some of the early conversion "successes." All six of the case studies in the book would later prove to be fraudulent.
I think maybe the most interesting thing here is this "homosexual mafia" meme. I keep seeing this phrase popping up in various places, especially in the aftermath of the Mark Foley thing, and I cannot for the life of me tell if all the people using the phrase "homosexual mafia" are all trying to refer to the same thing, or if any of them really have a clear idea of what it is they are attempting to express by use of the phrase.
Personally I can't hear the phrase "homosexual mafia" without thinking of the old site lesbianstudies.com, a virtual treasure trove of net.kookery which (mixed in with some slightly mysterious racially charged diatribes) is devoted to exposing a "Lesbian mafia" which apparently runs America.
WHY DO LESBIANS SPREAD HATE
NEXT--Why would lesbians want to spread HATE ? VERY SIMPLE, THE SAME REASON Adolph Hitler spread hate between the Jews and German people. It's a clinical fact, lesbianism is a sickness, they suffer with an extreme form of paranoia and persecution complex; and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. You see it's a medical proven fact, lesbianism is a developmental disorder which progresses into psychotic paranoia. Hence causing extreme fear of all men, otherwise associated with heterophobia. It's common practice for lesbians to call all heterosexuals, homophobes, but clinical studies have confirmed that all lesbians have a dreadful fear of heterosexuals and especially men.
This is a medical proven fact, any and all postulation to the contrary is sheer psycho-babble and contrived quackery.
Therefore, I challenge all to open study. Yes, the message must be told. It's time the American people start asking questions.
I originally found this site through their emphatic defense of Jack Thompson (who you may be familiar with due to his recent advocacy and lawsuits in favor of banning video games, especially ones he considers violent), who, according to lesbianstudies.com, was a victim of the Lesbian mafia as a result of his 1988 political campaign for the office of Dade County State Attorney, running against Janet Reno.
"Homosexuals consider male/male sex superior to male/female sex."
Um, duh! That's what makes them homosexuals, hello.
"And many consider man/boy sex the highest form of sexual pleasure."
Thought that was NAMBLA, most of whom don't indentify themselves as homosexual.
"Homosexuals have literally moved from Alfred Kinsey's sex labs in Bloomington, Indiana to the power centers of America in a generation."
How did they all fit in Kinsey's sex labs??
"Unknown to most Americans, however, is the fact that the Nazi Party was literally populated with homosexuals."
Wow. Bet they're embarassed now! Don't tell the neo-Nazis!
'...homosexuality is a most powerful weapon in the hands of secular progressives and C. S. Lewis' "Conditioners" seeking to destroy Western Civilization and its Christian-based morality and change "the civilized patterns of sexual behavior."'
But...I thought C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist. Does this mean I can go see "The Chronicles of Narnia" now?
Ed, I think the comic you're referring to is Jim David. I loved that bit.
The last quoted paragraph is obviously an allusion to Scott Lively's The Pink Swastika, which has been thoroughly debunked.
The "third sex" idea apparently originated from Magnus Hirschfeld, a late 19th-early 20th century German gay rights advocate. See here, here and here. Hirschfeld tried, but failed, to get Germany's notorious Paragraph 175 repealed, which criminalized homosexuality. That paragraph was in effect long before the Nazis came to power (which gives a lie to the assertion that the Nazis criminalizd homosexuality) and it gave the Allies liberating the Nazi concentration camps the excuse to turn gay people--those who were adorned by the pink triangles--over to German civil authorities for further incarceration after the war. Gay people were the only ones to whom that was done.
Without going into the other absurdities in this, I'l simply point out that, rather than going from Kinsey's labs to the centers of power, gays were in the centers of power before Kinsey wrote. Sadly, not the most liberal of the gays, but does anyone remember J. Edgar, or Joe McCarthy, or Cardinal Spellman?
And of course we had a gay President and Vice President (they were lovers, but did not hold those offices simultaneously). James Buchanan and Sen. William R. "Miss Nancy" King, who was Pierce's VP but died before he was ever able to serve. The letters between them when Buchanan was posted as Ambassador to England are seriously touching love letters.
I am sure there were others. (I have always felt that there was a good chance that both Sam Rayburn and Thaddeus Stevens were gay, but have no proof of this.)
What I find amazing about this post (among other things already pointed out) is that if you changed the word "homosexual" to "evangelical" and the sexual behavior to religion, you have generally what was said by mainline Christians about the evangelical movement when it began around the turn of the 19th century. As Ed has pointed out repeatedly, in those days the fundies were all for separation of church and state, so they would no longer be persecuted and thrown in jail for preaching the "wrong" religion. Of course, once it became legal to preach the theology of evangelicalism (which diverges from mainstream Christianity in many ways; in fact the Catholic Church considers it a cult), then the evangelicals would not stop, they wanted acceptance and approval, etc...
Hello Kettle, this is Pot, you're black.
May I ask if the gentleman for whom this dubious award is named is the Robert O'Brien that I know and don't so much love?
One and the same.
RoB just visited my blog and was very concerned about how I refered to Chuck Norris' career but was admitedly apathetic about Common Descent.