Why Opposing The LGBTQ Agenda Is Not Bigotry
Back in April of this year, Michael W. Chapman penned a column for CNS about Ana Samuel, Ph.D., the research scholar and pro-traditional marriage activist who warned 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg that his homosexual ideology is “dangerous to the nation.” Samuel maintains that while civility is paramount in the debate over this issue, she also asserts that her following (representing millions of mothers with traditional family values) will resist “policies that assault our values, harm our families, and hurt our children.”
Ms. Samuel is a notable figure, not only because she is dynamic and well-educated, but because she is Latina, and therefore is bucking the system to which a majority of Americans of Latin descent hold allegiance. Samuel happens to be the daughter of Mexican immigrants, and her husband is an Argentine immigrant. The couple has six children.
It is a sad commentary that with the “normalization” of homosexuality in the public square, even many conservative Americans have either accepted the notion that the attendant ideology (as Samuel put it) is not harmful to society at large, or they just don’t press the point anymore.
There is a distinct difference between being tolerant of people in the LGBTQ camp and summary acceptance of every notion advanced by leftist mouthpieces ostensibly advocating for them. By the same token, there is a distinct difference between people who self-identify as LGBTQ and those who claim to represent them, i.e., politicos and activists, since these have widely divergent objectives.
As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the political left successfully inculcated moral ambivalence into millions of young people through the propaganda and so-called sexual sensibilities that came out of the Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s. They simply denied the fact that sexual libertinism was harmful to society at large and stigmatized anyone who disagreed.
Similarly, leftists have chipped away at the sensibilities of the public as regards homosexuals. Tolerance for people in the LGBTQ camp has become synonymous with the summary acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda, lock, stock and barrel – and some of it is decidedly frightening as well as disgusting.
Pre-teen “drag kids” are now being showcased in media and at LGBTQ events, and we are admonished to embrace them or be branded as bigots. We are also supposed to accept the idea that these children came up with the idea all on their own, as opposed to having been groomed by activists, media and twisted individuals around them. Finally, it is demanded that we capitulate to the preposterous idea that this lifestyle does no harm to these children.
But the left has always been duplicitous, stealthy and craven. We were told in the wake of the Roe v. Wade decision that abortion would only occur in the most extreme of circumstances. Now, the sale of aborted baby parts has become a cottage industry, and leftists in some states have widened the criteria to qualify babies literally in the birth canal as abortable. We were told in the 1960s that sexual libertinism wasn’t harmful; it was just a lifestyle choice we all ought to accept. Fifty years later, as I said in my earlier column, the results speak for themselves.
We were also told when “gay rights” became “a thing” in the 1970s that it was unfair, even bigoted, to suggest that homosexual men have a penchant for pederasty. Yet, now we can find preteen “drag boys” at pride parades; when they are showcased, these are invariably surrounded by homosexual men – usually pretty skeevy-looking ones at that.
The bottom line is this: The leftist power structure, which claims to advocate for minorities of every stripe, has no such interest. Their chief objectives are to sow division amongst various groups while grooming the population at large for every manner of maladjustment they can conceive, whether drug addiction, sexual dysfunction, or the idolatry of Earth worship, to name but a few.
The danger of a guy like Pete Buttigieg (and the difference between him and his “husband” versus a homosexual couple living quietly in their community) is that Buttigieg is a socialist activist promoting the LGBTQ agenda. As such, he already knows that his ideology is dangerous – at least in the eyes of those who hold traditional values.
Do not doubt that the LGBTQ agenda has as much to do with the civil rights of LGBTQ people as the agenda of reparations for blacks has to do with the long-term well-being of black Americans – this being none at all.
Like Dr. Ana Samuel, we need to start making the distinction between people in minority groups and the socialist power structure that exploits them – and fast. Following this, we need to act accordingly. If you oppose the preteen drag queen festival being proposed at your child’s public school, you know that this is not the same thing as being in favor of shipping homosexuals off to concentration camps.
So, help to organize the protest against that dragfest, or attend it in accordance with your conscience – but be prepared to defend yourself. When words fail, leftists are very quick to resort to violence.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush