Do You Belong to the “Forces of Darkness”
If you do not support “gay rights,” then according to Tim Gill you are a member of the forces of darkness. Gill has begun a well thought out strategy to use political donations to help ensure that you have no voice in the political system. Who is Tim Gill you ask? He created a publishing software company called Quark, Inc. He recently sold his holdings for about a half billion dollars in order to dedicate his money and himself to his goal of ensuring that “anti-gay” politicians get defeated on the local level. To do so, he has organized a political analysis machine to identify and target “vulnerable” politicians around the country along with a network of “pro-gay” donors.
He believes that while this is a long term approach, it is the most cost effective because it reduces the number of local “anti-gay” initiatives which can influence the national scene, it is much cheaper because a few thousand dollars can reverse an election on the local level, it removes “anti-gay” politicians from rising to the national level, and finally it creates an atmosphere of fear that will force politicians to abandon their “anti-gay” agendas if they want to keep from being targeted by Gill’s machine. Last year, Gill himself donated $15M; almost all to local campaigns around the country.
Atlantic Monthly ran an article in the March edition of this year that outlines his strategy. What strikes you as you read the article is that it takes the perspective that what “gay rights” activists are pushing for is obviously a matter of justice. The so called “gay” agenda has the moral high ground. The article throws out Gill’s terminology about “punishing the wicked” and referring to politicians such as Rick Santorum of Pennsylvannia, as “one such villain.” The author throws in that Santorum had once compared homosexuality to “man on dog sex.” Since he didn’t give a source for this claim, I suspect that it is a distortion of Santorum’s comment before the Supreme Court decision on the Texas sodomy law which they eventually overturned, in which Santorum said that if the Texas law cannot be upheld then there is no principle by which one could then outlaw such things as polygamy, bestiality, etc. Santorum was, of course, referring to natural law and the biological meaning of sexual intercourse as ordered to procreation. However, “man on dog sex” is no doubt how one affected with SSAD hears it which immediately tells you a bit about the author and the editorial staff of Atlantic Monthly.
Gill wishes to advance the agenda which he terms as equal rights for everyone. Equal rights include “gay marriage,” laws against discriminating in employment, housing, or anything else, against those who engage in and promote the “gay” lifestyle, and of course “hate” laws to punish more severely any crime done against someone who self-identifies as “gay” and has a suspicion that this was why he was attacked. Ultimately we see that those laws are increasingly being used to stifle the Christian teaching that SSAD is objectively just that, a disorder.
Something that I found interesting is that a recent failure was attributed in part by one of Gill’s strategizers as due to the factor he calls “the gay ick.” What this is, is when “good straight people” (i.e. those who buy into the line that the SSAD lifestyle is nothing different than a heterosexual romance) are made to focus on the acts done by those who engage in same sex activities, they are repulsed by it. But what else is this “gay” culture than one oriented around an unnatural activity?
Like abortion, this is fundamentally where the “rights” strategy breaks down and shows you the man hiding behind the curtain. If one has to hide the activity, such as the killing of a baby or the personally demeaning acts that one is led to do when involved in the SSAD lifestyle in order to make it palatable to the average person, then this ought to be a red flag for the average person.
Unfortunately, our culture is not in the habit of thinking critically and the propaganda machine takes advantage of this. Activists like Tim Gill will continue to promote the most sellable face of the SSAD lifestyle and call evil those who oppose it. St. Paul warned that those who give into these sins of the flesh will eventually call what is evil–good, and what is good–evil. So, if you are being confronted by those who call a disorder good, then do not be surprised when you are identified with the forces of darkness.
.jpg)
I can shed light on the so-called Santorum comparison of homosexuality to “man on dog sex.” Santorum was arguing - correctly - that if you change the definition of marriage from one between a man & a woman you fundamentally alter the understanding of marriage held be all societies - primitive and advanced - since the earliest times of humankind.
Since homosexual marriage turns that concept on its head to satisfy active homosexuals’ desire to have access to marriage (that is, because they WANT it), Santorum said, then such a change places our culture on a slippery slope. Other “aggrieved” groups will cite the changes made for homosexuals in demanding further re-definition of marriage: polygamists (probably first and foremost), advocates of incest, pedophiles seeking to marry minors of either sex, and - here’s where the “man on dog sex” reference comes in - bestiality advocates - ALL seeking to utilize a liberalized marriage definition to provide cover and to bestow acceptibility, if not legitimacy, to carrying out their favored sexual activities.
None of these groups actually have genuine need of the marriage structure (nor do homosexuals), but obtaining the “right to marry” brings a range of benefits that fulfill other agendas, not withstanding the arguments about partner perks.
THAT is what Santorum was driving at, but the gay lobby, the media, and their Democratic allies on the left all joined in a chorus of shouting that Santorum was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Actually, the comparison was between the “rationale” of the arguments for creating legal but non-traditional forms of marriage. Once you open the door, it will be impossible to hold back the flood.
Comment by Phil — December 14, 2007 @ 4:05 pm