Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 8:49am

All That Is Necessary For The Triumph Of The Same Sex Agenda Is That Good Men Do Nothing

All that is necessary for the triumph of the same sex agenda is that good men do nothing.  The fear of reprisal, both materially and physically, can cause good men to do nothing.

Having not experienced this form of intimidation, I am still disturbed by the tactics that are utilized by the more militant arm of the same sex marriage agenda.  This exposure to such violence is almost non-existent for me.

Being not so young anymore and not so old I have never witnessed the violence that engulfed America during the 1960s.  The turbulent 1968 Democratic National Convention to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr was something I never experienced.

What I did experience was while viewing in 1981 the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, not to mention having to watch over and over again in 1985 the snapping of Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann’s leg in two.  Both incidents left me cringing at the television set at the worst moments of the telecast.

Fast forward to November 2008 right after Proposition 8 was passed I was disturbed beyond words.  Watching the anger and hate in the eyes of the same sex proponents intimidating those they oppose.  Whether verbal or physical, it disturbed me enough that I pulled the infamous crucifix stomping video by gay advocates from my personal blog site.

Why the violence from same sex proponents?

I don’t know and can only speculate the reasons why.

What we, those that are pro-life and pro-family can do, especially Catholics, is pray.

We need to pull out our weapon of mass conversion, the Holy Rosary and pray for the proponents of the same sex marriage agenda.

We need to continue to selflessly and patiently endure these attacks.

We need only to reflect on the many martyrs and saints that were thrown to the lions in the Flavian Amphitheatre.  How they persevered with quiet confidence for their love of Jesus while being viciously persecuted in front of the crowds.

We too must continue our witness and accept them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity (CCC 2358 cf.).

Defeat them with love for they know not what they do (Lk 23:34 cf.).

We will not do nothing.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Teresa
Friday, July 23, AD 2010 9:06pm

I fully agree that prayer is the answer. I believe that both action and informing the public about the purpose of traditional marriage, how it relates to Christianity, and explaining the reasons why same-sex “marriage” goes against the purpose of marriage- procreation- is very important for traditional marriage defenders to be able to win this debate or culture war. It is impossible for same-sex couples to have an openness to procreate. Traditional marriage couples have that openness (to procreate) regardless of whether the couple is having infertility issues or not. But, it is an impossibility for two males or two females to procreate naturally.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, July 23, AD 2010 9:54pm

Seems extreme/fanatical narcissists believe in free speech for themselves but not for us. That they can silence those who may believe differently than they. The Age of Enlightenment is past.

When we find ourselves alone and the government is derelict in its duties to protect liberties and persons. There are instances wherein physical force is justified.

Anthony
Anthony
Friday, July 23, AD 2010 10:12pm

I just can’t take this debate seriously any more.

Tito Edwards
Friday, July 23, AD 2010 10:22pm

Anthony,

Should I laugh at your comment?

Anthony
Anthony
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 7:50am

Do what you like, Tito.

I just think that its near impossible to discuss the matter in a rational way.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 10:16am

I think I agree with Anthony.

As Orwell (or was it Gibbon?) said (I think, I don’t have it here.) “I never make the mistake of arguing with irrational people over beliefs/issues to which they they cling that have no moral or rational basis.”

n4nadmin
n4nadmin
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 8:32pm

I’m just a little blogger, myself, and yet I’ve had a radio host suggest that people beat me up, while a kind person over at Daily Kos once opined that I should be strung up from a street lamp with a meat hook. Meanwhile, my partner in blogging was once upon a time roughed up by union goons who didn’t like his opinion being expressed in the public square.

Some years back I managed to catch some flak for calling our progressive friends “junior-league Leninists” – it was a “how dare I?” moment. But that is what they are: narrow minded, bitter, hate-filled fanatics. They don’t want debate – to debate implies that the other side might have a valid point, and they’ll never accept that.

And so, this is what we see – and I really doubt its a new phenomena; its likely that we’re just seeing more of it due to the advent of the New Media. In the end, this is a good thing – the more these kooks are exposed, the more outrage builds among average Americans and thus comes the greater chance of securing the power necessary to make real changes.

Mark Noonan

Tito Edwards
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 8:44pm

Anthony,

I understand now.

n4nadmin, Teresa, T. Shaw,

Yeah, at times (maybe most) it is impossible to engage in any dialogue with people that are this intolerant and bigoted against us.

Anthony
Anthony
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 10:08pm

“the more these kooks are exposed, the more outrage builds among average Americans and thus comes the greater chance of securing the power necessary to make real changes.”

Just to ruffle feathers, I will say that I have little confidence that once power is obtained it is utilized properly. Power is predictably used to (1) bring reprisal on political enemies and/or (2) make it difficult to dislodge who’s in power.

Supporters of “traditional marriage” are just as susceptible to that kind of corruption as the pro-gay marriage side.

To this day I still believe the only peaceful way out of the argument is to walk away from state-sanctioned marriage. Both sides of this debate concede a crucial (and I think, fatal) point: that governments, even secular ones, have authority to tinker with the personal relationships between consenting adults.

There are moral hazards on both sides of that coin. On the pro-gay marriage side there is a real risk that the next logical step is a breach into theological issues by governments, forcing religions to accept same-sex marriage or finding ways to punish them for not. On the traditional side, there is a real risk of some individuals hiding behind the issue in order to enact homophobic policies (the genuine kind, not the trumped-up kind).

The only role I could possibly see for governments is in their authority to enforce contracts and mediate contractual disputes between individuals. There’s nothing about that power which requires the word “marriage” attached to it.

cminor
Saturday, July 24, AD 2010 10:57pm

I tend to lean to Anthony’s side–the State didn’t create marriage, and if it were to get out of the marriage business entirely there wouldn’t be much to yell about, would there?

Realistically, I don’t see that happening. It may be useful to remind folks who think their “tolerance” badge will be tarnished if they don’t give in to this exercise in social engineering that the State really shouldn’t be meddling if it can’t demonstrate a compelling interest. The State’s interest in traditional marriage is that it provides the best environment for raising children who do not subsequently become problems for the State. I believe that compelling interest is largely absent (or at least, highly optional) in same-sex relationships.

Anthony
Anthony
Sunday, July 25, AD 2010 10:35am

My qualm with “the State’s interest” is that it shifts with the political winds.

Under certain circumstances it could be in the state’s “interest” that abortion become illegal. The need for cheap labor, future soldiers, taxpayers and population collapse could all be reasons for the state to do away with abortion. On the other hand, reducing costs, freeing the supply of goods, eliminating undesirable traits and population control could (and are) used to justify abortion.

Take marriage. I could just as easily justify allowing gay marriage by saying the practice would (or could) stabilize promiscuous behavior, “normalize” certain consensual sexual acts, reduce instances of violence against gays while providing the state with fiscally stable homes in which to place unwanted children. All are reasons to be a-okay with letting gay marriage move forward. And, selfishly, the State will undermine the Church, thus increasing government’s sway with people over that of religion.

Where do we really go to worship? The Church, or the State? It’s an important question to answer because it seems that both sides wish to see their values either codified or validated through the coercive powers held by government. If “my values” receive the government’s stamp of approval then “the Truth” be damned.

These are questions Christians of all stripes should think long and hard on before rushing to pass laws or fire shots in the culture wars.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Sunday, July 25, AD 2010 11:42am

The State isn’t going to get out of the marriage business. Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock foundation of our society. Homosexual “marriage” is a travesty being foisted upon society by those who wish the State to give its stamp of approval to homosexuality and use the coercive power of the State against those who dissent. This is an important battle and should be fought against by all those who realize that this is part of a struggle waged by those who wish to turn the concept of family on its head.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top