I can understand why people just give and support the homosexual lobby and their demands.
They are playing the long game and and its wearisome. The Marxists refer to it as “the long march through the institutions of power” and it’s really beginning to pay off and homosexuality is legally deemed the equivalent of marriage and feelings about “gender” become the same thing as biological sex.
The long march through the education system has led to radical social change instituted through government and the legal system.
Now, the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nations are being increasingly substituted with moral relativism and we are at the point where there are enough people in academia to back any claim, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory.
Organisations like Australia’s tax-payer funded news and media organisation, The ABC, are filled with individuals and groups who wholeheartedly agree with this radical Marxist doctrine of social upheaval.
At every opportunity, they post stories and commentary that gives a voice to minority groups like the LGBT community as though they were in fact a significant majority of the population.
They are so blatantly onesided and bold in their distortion of truth than reading their ongoing propaganda can be draining and intimidating, especially when presented through disturbingly biased and manipulative formats such as their “Fact Check” articles.
Their most recent claim is that after a rigorously honest look at the facts, there can be no doubt that homosexual parents are equally as effective as parents in comparison with the biological mother and father of a child.
They tell us these are the facts so this must be the last word on the matter, right?
Should we even bother to try and rebut this anymore? Certainly we should and I will continue to but not here. Many others do a splendid job of that elsewhere.
This stems to the fight between worldviews so it’s better to go straight to the root.
Simply, humanism’s antichrist foundation hates the creator but like the creation and it consequently crosses itself in paradox as it tries to keep its cake and eat it too.
Humanism’s worship of science as the only means to know anything crashes headlong into its postmodern deconstruction of known reality into a buffet of relativity, producing an affirmation and celebration of homosexuality over and against the biological impotence of homosexuality.
And that’s just where the rabbit hole begins…
Consider humanism’s massive contradiction of homosexual marriage and parenting in light of feminism.
The claim that two men can parent a child as well as the biological mother and father leaves a dent in the central tenant of the feminist ideology, which claims women are not only equal to men but must necessarily participate in every level of society to achieve equality.
Apparently that does not extend to marriage and child-rearing where women aren’t actually required at all because, as the religiously humanist ABC attests, two men can do the same job.
So which is it?
If you are willing to deny the sacred bond between mother and child and say that dad and his male partner offer exactly the same thing, then the logical implication is that men could do the same job in something so trivial as a company or in government and so women aren’t needed there after all…especially after all that complaining about women’s rights and equality.
It all becomes very confusing when you add in “gender”, which means that if you feel like a woman and “identify” as one, then you are one even if you have a penis and testicles.
Would feminists be happy with a company full of people who identify as “women” who all happen to have penises? Or if the government was full of these same penis-equipped “women”?
Feminism seems to rely pretty heavily on a fixed conception of women being women, even though it deconstructs the role of women. Gender, on the other hand, goes super-postmodern and deconstructs the idea of “women” into a feeling and a choice.
Even if we stick to simple, clearly defined identities based on the archaic idea of different yet compatible biological sexes, can a mother ever teach a son how to be a man and fulfil the desire of a son to have relationship with his father? Can a father do this for his daughter?
If a woman identifies as a man and is in a lesbian relationship, can she teach her son how to love and respect women and how to stand against the natural tendency of men towards either passivity, aggression, and often both?
Is it fair to say that there are actually concrete differences between men and women and that men can’t identify with some things women experience and vice versa?
Or do I, as a man, have the right to talk to women about their periods, their pregnancies, their emotions, their longings, and their weaknesses as though I am a woman because I identify as a woman?
Back to the topic of marriage and raising children, what if there were people out there who refused to identify dangerous lifestyles as dangerous? What if instead, they identified the proven standard of history – a husband and wife for life – as just one inconsequential option among many choices and combinations?
What if, because of this crazy deconstruction of society through relativism, the vast majority became subject to the insignificant minority, even against the best interests of society as a whole?
And what if, no matter how you identify things, you will one day be accountable for what actually is, not what you feel or want or wish?
This post didn’t end up where I thought it would – just writing about this stuff seems to do that so imagine, if you can, where a society that practises all this will end?