Terrifying, Unacceptable Terms of Surrender in Same Sex ‘Marriage’ Battle
By now many informed individuals, liberal company excluded, have heard the discouraging news that Ross Douthat, the lone conservative holdout at the New York Times, has recently thrown in the towel on the national same-sex “marriage” debate. In his recent column, The Terms of Our Surrender, he grimly declares defeat and states, “All that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.” Remember, though, the same kind of thing was also said about abortion in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision, but the debate continues to rage, and the pro-life position has actually gained ground in recent years.
He also foolishly frames this surrender as punishment, not persecution, for Christians who “far too often chose intolerance” against homosexuals. But if such statements are designed to arouse the sympathies of the virulent homosexual activists, don’t waste your breath, Mr. Douthat. You will receive little mercy from the anti-male/female marriage extremists—They’re not planning on being big-hearted any time soon, for they have ice flowing through their veins.
Although I adamantly reject the premise of Douthat’s analysis, it is still a very eye-opening exercise to consider what the likely fallout of Douthat’s proposed surrender would be if we as individuals or a nation were to unwisely heed his counsel.
And don’t take my word for it—Let’s allow the vicious homosexual activists to speak for themselves on this matter. Instead, of being accused (as I will anyway) of putting words into their mouths, let’s give them enough rope to hang themselves, as they most assuredly will, by considering their own vitriol. And by the way, these are their words specifically in response to Douthat’s NYT’s column.
Two recent articles written by Mark Joseph Stern (Slate) and John Saul (Huffington Post) reveal what the homo-fascists have in mind and what they would love to sadistically do to those who have been, or still are, in opposition them.
Seeing right through Douthat’s kiss-up “punishment” comment, Mark Joseph Stern is not in a charitable mood, and he has no room for any of Douthat’s groveling for the generous treatment of Christians. Sensing blood in the water, Stern lambasts Douthat and Christians for their “disgusting raw hatred” and “base bigotry,” and instructs his sycophantic followers to “make ‘homophobes’ the real victims.” Trafficking in his own actual religious bigotry, Stern’s contempt for anyone who holds to a moral view of marriage is palpable, and his plans are retaliatory in nature.
John Saul, on the other hand, is much more pointed in his obviously hateful remarks:
“Somehow, it had never occurred to me that there should be any negotiation when it comes to bigotry, let alone any kind of “settlement.” Sorry, Ross, but it doesn’t work that way…and we don’t have to tolerate the rest of your bigotry”
In a mocking tirade of against Christianity, the ever sardonic Saul also scoffs at the idea that “the rest of us (the liberal extremists)… are supposed to give this minority of dunces all the respect they think they deserve.”
Then, after another scathing rant about religion being nothing more than superstition, Saul offers this measly and sarcastic concession as the only “gracious” term of surrender that he’s willing to grant: “Even my own atheism has a tiny chance of being wrong. (I’m not sure I really believe that, but at least I’m willing to toss you a crumb. Take it as your “settlement.”)
“And don’t think,” Saul menacing threatens, “we won’t keep trying to eradicate the rest of your bigotry, either.”
There is not one ounce of tolerance from either Stern or Saul in what amounts to a zero-sum game for them. And that’s why Douthat’s article isn’t worth the “paper” it’s written on. Douthat is either absolutely uninformed or willfully ignorant when it comes to the pernicious aims of the homosexual “movement,” but there is absolutely NO excuse for either of those possibilities. All anyone has to do is to look around, open their eyes, and see what’s happening everywhere across this country with increasing and horrifying regularity. True American rights and freedoms are being trampled underfoot by the bullies of decadence.
The homo-maniacal plans for all traditionalists sound quite unpleasant, not to mention being a clear violation of our First Amendment rights. Ah, heck, while the homosexual hordes are busy burning the “Reichstag,” why not throw in the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of the Independence for good measure, as a little more fuel on the “gay rights” fire … since we’re apparently not using them anymore. A scorched earth policy is certainly the order of the day for this new breed of homo-fascists.
There are apparently no plans for some sort of Geneva Convention for the moral non-conformist prisoners-of-war.Little or no mercy will be shown to true Christians and the remaining conservative pockets of resistance. It will either be full capitulation to the homosexual agenda…or it will be re-education, incarceration, bankruptcy, marginalization, and state-sanctioned ridicule…or worse…are there any available cattle cars around? That’s what Stern, Farrell and many of their ilk would love to see happen should they get their wicked way. Chillingly, there are many just like these two Leftist publishers of perversity, and they have the money of Hollywood, the megaphone of the media, the muscle of a rogue judiciary, and the might of a corrupted government to back them up. And Douthat’s cowardly concession will only serve to inflame the anti-morality fascists, as if they needed any more help.
Ultimately, the point is this: Surrender should never be an option for two very abundantly clear reasons. First, there is the unmistakable clarion call of God to uphold and defend his moral and biblical standards in civil society. For history has unmistakably shown that no nation or culture has long remained strong and vibrant after abandoning their moral underpinnings. Second, for those like Douthat who might remotely consider the imprudent possibility of cowardly capitulation, Stern and Saul have made their sinister schemes of subjugation for the Christians and all moral traditionalists abundantly clear, and it isn’t pretty. It’s flat out frightening!
The resolute words of Winston Churchill in his Blood, Sweat and Tears speech, ringing in my ears right now, are quite apropos to the moment at hand:
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
That’s the attitude and spirit of a victor, and that’s also why the Allied powers beat the Gestapo then, and we, if we too remain united, can beat the “gay”-stapo today!
Considering all of the heinous plans of the militant homosexuals (above), I for one will certainly not consider conceding a single inch of ground to the abhorrent “gay” agenda. The lovers of God and his truth shall never surrender, no matter what the Douthat’s of the world may say! He might be willing to raise the white flag of surrender, but the faithful followers of Christ will keep His banner lifted high!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More