From my other blog page, The Road to Concord:
LAWLESSNESS IN THE HEADLINES: The Whole LGBT Agenda is Lawless
I am going to demonstrates that — when it comes to speaking the truth — I am not afraid to grab and hold on to the third rail by saying that Dr. Carson was not entirely wrong in what he said about homosexuality being a choice. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this is true, and those who are aware of the history behind the homosexual agenda understand this. I suspect Dr. Carson is one of those who knows the truth of this history, and that it may have played a factor in his comments tot he media this past week. Either way, the facts are clear: homosexuality is being used as a political tool, and the shield of political correctness is being used to protect that agenda. You will likely feel it in the way you are reacting to this post now, or in the comments that are sure to follow. I fully expect to be called a ‘homophobe’ and/or a ‘hater’ for writing this post. But the PC attacks that are sure to follow those who try to expose the truth do not change that truth.
I want to start by telling you about a statistics class I took when I was earning my Sociology degree. My professor was an anomaly in that she intellectually honest. She did not allow political correctness in her class. If you could not argue factually, she dismissed your opinion and paper. She used several controversial studies to help us understand what we were supposed to be learning. One of them was the study that resulted in second hand smoke being declared a carcinogen. That same study showed the milk and peanut butter are more dangerous than second hand smoke. He point was to show us how statistics are manipulated for political purposes. I remember this because she also used a study on homosexuality in this class. It revealed that, before the AMA was pressured into changing its position on homosexuality, it was treated as a psychological disorder. In this study was the data showing that those who were treated successfully ‘converted’ back to heterosexuality some 98% of the time with a recidivism rate of less than 3-5%. He point to us was clear: the data we were hearing in the media did not match the data in the study that was being sited, and that is all she said or would allow to be said. She refused to allow us to argue over any moral aspect of the issue. She kept us focused on statistics and how they are manipulated. But she was teaching us the truth, and you can read more about that here.
Now, when the media purposely and knowingly manipulates information to form, shape and direct public opinion — especially when it has the support of the government — it is called propaganda. It is lawless on its face as it is a form of a lie. Disinformation for the purpose of manipulation is a lie. However, a free press that can be trusted to present the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is an essential element to maintaining a free and self-governing society. So, when such the media in a free society starts to lie to the people, the media has turned on that society. Again, this is lawlessness and a gross violation of Natural Law as it is a subversion of the Social Contract. If it happens to often or for too long, the Social Contract is destroyed and that society along with it. Tyranny then follows.
While there are those who will argue otherwise, there are a few facts that few of us have the courage to address anymore. This is because of more lawlessness. Political correctness is used to silence people. If necessary, it is used to destroy their reputation and their careers. These are illegal acts, both under our civil laws as well as Natural Law. Yet, today, this is exactly what our media, schools and even government do to anyone who questions the PC narrative. However, these lawless attacks do not change the facts that no one has ever shown a medical cause for homosexuality. There is no genetic or biological evidence for homosexuality. It is also a violation of the Natural Laws governing both evolution as well as survival of the species. In short, there is no ‘scientific’ evidence or reasoning that can demonstrate a person is born a homosexual. At the same time, the evidence that it may be a psychological condition that can be successfully treated has been forcefully buried and now denied by the same forces enforcing the PC narrative in our society. This is lawlessness.
Another aspect to this issue is its sociological aspect. Bisexuality is a growing trend — especially among teenaged girls. NBC News has one piece that calls it ‘experimentation.’ It is one of many such stories, but the truth in Dr. Carson’s statements about sexuality is right in the headline of the NBC News story. It is a matter of logic that ‘experiment’ implies choice. If you are born one way or another, then you do not need to ‘experiment,’ you simply are. Furthermore, I have personal knowledge of this issue. I have seen people who were pressured into bisexuality. Eventually, they outwardly embraced it. It gave them access to and acceptance from the sub-culture to which their friends belonged. However, the same people eventually left because it was not what and who they really are. I have several such friends, and they all tell me it consumed them until they got out of what they openly say is nothing more than a lifestyle. Now, this is not to say that all homosexual and/or bisexual people have consciously chosen their orientation, but it does show that it is not only possible, it happens far more than our PC culture will allow anyone to say. This is lawlessness.
Sticking with the sociological aspects of this issue, let’s consider the popular notion that we can chose our gender orientation. Or more importantly, that there is no difference between boys and girls when they are born. That what makes them act like boys and girls has more to do with the way they are raised than biology. It’s called ‘gender bias.’ First, gender does not mean sex. It is a grammatical term that has been equivocated with sex, so this is a violation of the laws of both logic and the English language. But more importantly, the notion of gender bias being social in origin undermines the GLGBT claim that they are born that way. If we accept the argument of gender bias and believe that boys and girls take on male or female identities because of how they are raised, then homosexuals are nothing more than the product of being socialized female instead of male (and vice verse a). Once again, this would seem that science is against the homosexual argument. However, in this case, good studies have shown that men and women really are born different, and that gender bias has more to do with another political agenda which is tangentially related to that of the GLBT lobby. Either way, it is all more lawlessness.
In large part, what we have in the homosexual lobby is a political agenda aimed at undermining our society by infiltrating and turning our legal system and supporting social institutions against us. Our schools and entertainment media are being used to indoctrinate people — especially children. It is being done by attacking both our morals and our ability to maintain our moral standards. Our founders told us that morality is essential to liberty, and that morality must be founded in a belief in God. By using government to force people to act against their religious beliefs, and — through the schools ad media — to separate people from what their parents tried to teach them about God and God’s laws, the LGBT lobby is subverting our society. But more than that, they are waging war against the principles of both democracy and representative government. In order to survive, a society must be allowed to set and enforce moral standards. Every time the the courts strike down a law that the people have legally passed, or an amendment which was legally passed which aim to set and enforce society’s moral standards, the courts act in violation of both civil and Natural Law. the LGBT lobby has done just this: used the courts to lawlessly strike down lawful actions by the people and their duly elected representatives. This is lawlessness.
Now, lest someone argue that the LGBT lobby is only seeking equal protection, let me state this clearly: they already enjoy equal protection under the law. They have every much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as you or I. But this is not what they want. They want to use the government and social institutions to force society to accept their changes to Natural Law. When they force a new definition of marriage on society, it is a lawless act. When they try to equate a civil right with a Natural Right, it is a lawless act. When they use the courts to override a persons First Amendment rights to speak our or practice their religious beliefs, it is a lawless act. In fact, the entire LGBT agenda is based on the lawless forcing of a minority’s desires upon the whole of society, and the use of force against otherwise law abiding people is always lawless.
So, feel free to call me whatever names you chose. It will not bother me because I answer to a higher authority: the Truth. In this case, the Truth is the LGBT agenda is lawless and it seeks to destroy our society. We cans see this is true by taking the LGBT argument to its logical conclusions. If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then bigamists and polygamists are born that way, too. If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then so are pedophiles and rapists. If people are born homosexual without any evidence to the fact, then so are racists and murderers. But, if you argue that polygamists, pedophiles, racists, rapists and murderers can be judged by their acts instead of genetics, then the LGBT argument falls under the same thing: an action and not a matter of genetics. And, if we accept that people are guiltless based on genetics, then we must also do away with the law for it is unjust to punish anyone for something over which they have no control. In short: if you accept the LGBT argument, you must accept the notion that the natural state of man is licentiousness which — by definition — is lawlessness.
[NOTE: at no time did I attack anyone personally. I have gay and bisexual friends. I love them, but I also understand they are lawless in their lifestyle. I know this because I know I am equally lawless, just in other ways. We are all lawless because we all sin. But this does not mean we ignore the law…or excuse those who break it.]
7 thoughts on “APPLIED LOGIC: The Lawless Side of the LGBT Agenda”
Hilarious post. Really lifted my spirits.
Not sure how it was hilarious… it had it’s problems, but I don’t think it was meant as a satire or anything like that
Oh, it is definitely not satire. As for ‘problems:’ if you can show me where the logic is wrong (not personal opinion, but actual logic), I’d appreciate you showing me because, having spent a great deal of time learning and studying the formal application of logic, I believe the reasoning here is quite sound.
So “CanYouSeeClearly” stepped out of the house– we were looking at this together. I’m going to be nitpicky and pick on his tiny grammatical punctuation mistake– he put “it’s” where it should have been “its”.
Now to try to tell you what troubled him and what troubles me here, lemme see… I think he was troubled by what he thought of as a too-loose use of the term “lawlessness” which he equates with being an outlaw and all that goes with it, and he believes you were well aware of the impression that would form and that you were trying to make the lgbt community look like rowdy outlaws… I’m a little less troubled logically by your use of the term as I see your efforts to define it , which, I think, make his objection turn out to be not exactly spot-on.
However, your argument that using the courts to strike down laws that were duly passed as being somehow in itself lawless… i might need a little more precision from you on that to see how that assertion is right, because it is my understanding that striking down some laws is precisely one of the functions of the courts (I’m sure I could be more precise regarding the legal philosophy and certainly you may be equipped to put better words to what I am trying to say) but I think the use of the checks and balances is exactly to prevent bad laws from becoming irreversible. So using the court to strike down even carefully passed laws is by no means lawless, but precisely lawful and according to design. Unless I misunderstand something here. So I might like it if you spelled out what you mean there further… i’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that your argument may be sound but insufficiently clear, rather than saying you are all-out wrong there.
Also I’m not sufficiently convinced of the truthfulness of the claim that the lgbt lobby has as its specific aim the desire to undermine society. (which you seem to indicate in the next to last paragraph.) I think that goes too far in trying to “mind-read” everyone in the movement as to their motives (OR overgeneralizing the words of some crazy radical as an explanation for every lgbt person’s motive.) I believe from my interaction with those in the lgbt movement that most individuals feel they are trying to address a wrong that is being done to them regarding the laws that otherwise did not permit them to marry their desired partner. I think they believe they are trying to get society to adjust enough to let their partnerships be similar to those of straight people in terms of legal protection, insurance, inheritance of property, custody of kids etc etc… rather than having a full out desire to make society stop existing or something. Whether their logic is right or wrong is exactly where you can have a full and productive discussion, but making broad statements that appear to suppose a nefarious motive actually makes the discussion less on-target, less informative, and generally less helpful in my observation.
Full disclosure though I too have lgbt friends I do not have extremely strong views on most matters related to those politics. When I worked for a time for an organization that promoted those agendas I was an uneasy fit and so was logic, and never felt able to express myself there– even though I was generally kindly disposed to the lgbt people and their rights and needs. Just no questioning allowed. (I was there in a capacity related to human services and healthcare and sort of fell down the rabbit hole unawares…)
I will try to get “Clearly” to get back to this website. The two of us as usual are looking at about 20 different blogs and have had our browser shut itself down due to so many tabs being open–we should know better. We are doing some research on how those on the so-called “right” and the “whatever” left see themselves in moral terms, and how that has changed and evolved for both over the last few decades. I will let him know you asked a question about his response and hopefully he’ll get/take a moment to get back to you.
Intriguing site, thanks..
Thank you. That was the type of reply I wish more people would give when I ask for clarification. Your reply was polite, on point and clearly expressed. This makes it extremely informative and — thus — valuable to me.
Now, one of the issues you mentioned will need a post in itself to fully explain my assertions in this piece. That is the issue of courts acting lawlessly when they strike down a standing law.
As to the point about the LGBT agenda: that comes from much of their leadership literature. Here, as with most such movements, the rank-and-file aren’t usually aware of the agenda behind the movement. The leadership uses something innocuous to garner a popular appeal, but behind that appeal is a hidden agenda. For example: LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ was obstensibly about ending poverty, but in reality, he admitted it was about making blacks into a dependent voting class for the next several hundred years. Looking at how the black community votes almost exclusively Democrat, one can make the case that LBJ succeeded. That was a hidden agenda based on a false appeal to an otherwise noble plea. Well, dig deeply enough (as I have) and you will find the same applies to the LGBT movement. ‘Equal rights’ is the false appeal, but — as you even admit — there is another agenda hiding behind that veil (though, you only mentioned a symptom, not a conscious awareness).
Anyway, I’ll try to sit down and address the issue with the court this weekend. You might want to watch for it. I think I can make the case very cleanly, and very forcefully.
Until then peace to you (and thanks again) 🙂
Great post…. ‘Equating a civil right with a Natural Right’ and all that follows from it is indeed lawless.
But careful now….the Gay Nazi/mafia and their queerPatrol ‘s gonna Git yah !
That’s their whole reason for existence after all.