The Huffington Post recently (4/5/14) had an article entitled, Just Talking About Same-Sex Marriage With Anti-Gay Voters Can Shift Opinions, Study Shows. As one deeply concerned about the homosexual deception of our country, this provocative title immediately caught my attention.
The author of the piece, Shadee Ashtari, began by stating:
Having persuasive face-to-face conversations with someone who supports same-sex ‘marriage’ can lead opponents to have significant and long-lasting shifts in their views about ‘marriage equality,’ especially when the person they’re talking to is ‘gay,’ according to a new study by two political science professors.
The clear presupposition of this HuffPo hit piece is that support for natural marriage is not based upon a solid intellectual foundation that can withstand homosexual scrutiny. They really want us to believe that with one wave of the “progressive,” ideological magic wand, Christians and conservatives will fall like dominoes.
Granted, the “convictions” of many natural marriage supporters may be precariously resting upon little more than “Adam and Steve” jokes or the “ick” factor of homosexual sex, but there is actually a considerable amount of evidence in defense of our reasoned position. In fact, it’s the homosexual activists who heavily rely upon shallow talking points and cliché-style tactics to make their case.
The Huffington Post continued with a basic description of the key players involved in this study:
Michael J. Lacour of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Donald P. Green of Columbia University surveyed 9,507 Los Angeles County voters who lived in precincts that supported California’s 2008 on same-sex ‘marriage.’
Los Angeles County, really? Is this Left coast county actually supposed to represent your average American? Talk about stacking the deck in your favor! Maybe they did support Prop 8 back in 2008, but a lot has surely happened since then.
A study of this type inaccurately assumes that the measured changes in opinion (discussed below) have somehow occurred in the vacuum of isolated conversations with a homosexual community canvasser. At the same time that this study was being conducted, however, the average American has withstood an unrelenting barrage of pro-homosexual and anti-Christian messages, which have continued unabated for many years now. And that is especially the case for individuals living in the alternate homosexual universe of Los Angeles County. Sitcoms, network newscasts, Hollywood award shows, academia, parades, commercials, magazines, politicians, liberal friends and co-workers, homosexual activists – and the list goes on an on – have all been overwhelming our society with the great “gay” deception. If anything, these canvassers merely represented the mop-up crews for the homosexual war against morality.
According to Ashtari, here’s how the dubious study was undertaken:
Voters were divided into five randomly assigned groups, with some residents exposed to a ‘gay’ or straight canvasser advocating for same-sex ‘marriage’ and others assigned to a ‘gay’ or straight canvasser discussing the importance of recycling. The fifth group served as a control group to which no canvasser was assigned.
Sound-bite, superficial, over-simplistic homosexual arguments comport quite well with a postmodern society that doesn’t like to be confused with more specific facts and details. Some of these consistently overlooked truths include increased levels of infidelity, promiscuity, domestic violence, broken homes and disease that are all closely associated with homosexual relationships. How much are you willing to bet that the “gay” canvassers never talked about those unpleasant realities? Not a chance!
The Huffington Post reported these findings from the study, which were published on March 29:
Again looking at change scores, we see that those contacted by straight canvassers became 0.21 scale points more supportive of same-sex ‘marriage’ … The jump was even larger among treatment subjects who conversed with ‘gay’ canvassers: support for same-sex ‘marriage’ rose 0.35 scale points.
That’s because homosexual activists tend to make emotion-laden appeals that feed off of the sympathetic tendencies of human nature. For example, how many times have we heard same-sex supporters ask this disingenuous question, “Who are you to tell me who I can love?” Yet, nobody is trying to prevent anyone from loving whomever they choose; we simply realize that marriage actually means something and shouldn’t be recklessly tampered with for solely selfish, emotional reasons. Otherwise, homosexuals are free to love and be with any person they want — they just shouldn’t be permitted to engage in their unholy mock-rimony.
Homosexuals will also say things such as, “Nobody would choose to be ‘gay’ and have to endure all of the adversity that goes along with it?” For those that aren’t accustomed to utilizing their critical thinking skills, such an argument probably carries quite a bit of weight. However, a simple rephrasing of the question immediately reveals the fallacy of such logic: Do people ever choose to do things that have negative consequences? And the answer is an obvious and emphatic, “Yes.” There are a great number of people who have chosen to drink and drive, take drugs and engage in a whole host of destructive behaviors (i.e.: cutting, bulimia, anorexia, suicide, Münchausen syndrome), but nobody is excusing or embracing such behavior based on the ridiculous notion that people “would never choose to do something that has damaging or destructive outcomes.” Yet, that’s exactly what the homosexuals do every time they blindly traipse out this lame argument.
Or here’s one of my favorite homosexual comebacks: “When did you choose to be heterosexual?” Unfortunately, this “in-queery” often trips up natural marriage supporters. The question is a classic example of conflating causality with choices or attractions with actions. However, each topic must be dealt with independently. When discussing causality/attractions, there are numerous studies indicating that homosexuality is neither innate nor immutable. Moreover, genetic studies have inferred a hereditary link to every attribute or action associated with human nature. That includes many negative behaviors such as worry, crime, alcoholism, depression, laziness, aggression and smoking. However, no one is claiming that such undesirable conduct is uncontrollable or absent of moral culpability. And that invariably brings us to human choices/actions. When discussing homosexual behavior, we must constantly emphasize the role of free will and accountability with regards to all non-compulsory actions.
Furthermore, the mischaracterization of Christians and natural marriage supporters as bigots and homophobes is another manipulative tactic taken straight from the After the Ball homosexual playbook.
Mindlessly-repeated buzzwords have also been deviously redefined by the Leftists. In case you’re unaware, here are the “new” definitions:
Tolerance – 1.) A tyranny of deviancy that is vehemently intolerant of anyone who holds to a biblical or conservative point of view, 2.) The criminalization or marginalization of Christianity.
Liberty – 1.) Licentiousness or libertine (devoid of all moral restraints), 2.) “Sexual liberty” trumping religious liberty. [Georgetown Law Professor and lesbian Chai Feldblum, appointed by Pres. Obama to serve on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, infamously remarked that when push comes to shove (when religious liberty and sexual liberty are in conflict), “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”]
Diversity – The celebration of all types of perversity.
Freedom – 1.) A moral free-for-all, in which everyone is required to express full approval of any and all types of immorality and sexual deviancy, 2.) Unaccountable, unelected activist judges by-passing the democratic process and unconstitutionally imposing liberal ideology against the will of the electorate.
Social justice – Perpetrating a victimization/grievance industry.
Inclusion – 1.) Engaging in class warfare or division politics, 2.) The exclusion of the traditionally “favored” white male.
Democracy – Thugocracy or Mobocracy, whereby homosexuals activists employ intimidation, fear and reprisals to silence and destroy any opposition.
Marriage equality – 1.) Marriage equivocation, 2.) Marriage means nothing because it can mean anything.
Fairness – Far-left special rights for those groups that have achieved the exalted status of “protected” class, “victim” or minority.
Progressive – Perversive (A neologism, newly coined word, formed from the union of “perverse” and “subversive.”)
Civil rights – Civil wrongs lacking any vestige of social responsibility.
Most likely, the “gay” canvassers, who were involved in this manipulative study, copiously laced their conversations with several of these buzzwords, but never bothered to clarify the “new” meanings to the L.A. residents they had discussions with. In the HuffPo piece itself, Ashtari even refers to the misleading phrase “marriage equality.”
The article also notes the “spillover effect” on others living in the same household as those who were directly approached by the homosexual perversity-pushers:
The experiment also discovered a pro-gay-marriage spillover effect on the housemates of those who discussed same-sex unions with gay canvassers.
‘Although housemates did not receive the canvassing message directly, the evidence suggests that they were influenced by secondhand exposure to the treatment,’ the study concluded. ‘Those whose housemates conversed with gay canvassers about same-sex marriage … became 0.21 scale points more supportive of same-sex marriage.’
I must admit to having a special affinity for the clause “secondhand exposure,” and the actual study further refers to this as the “contagion effect.” The use of disease terminology to describe the spread of homosexual ideology is quite appropriate. Anyone who believes that abusing the sewer system of the human body/frolicking in feces constitutes an expression of “love” is most definitely suffering from some type of neurotic illness.
Also, how do Professors Lacour and Green explain the fact that a recent Rasmussen poll shows that public opinion on the issue has basically held steady from 2013 to 2014? The percentage of respondents supporting and opposing unnatural marriage is equally divided at 43% a piece. If natural marriage supporters are so easily swayed, then why hasn’t the last year shown a statistical rise in the support for unnatural marriage? It certainly isn’t because the homosexual activists and their collaborators have been on a sabbatical for a year. If anything, they have intensified their efforts.
There are a few possible explanations regarding the apparent inconsistency between the Lacour/Green (HuffPo) study and the Rasmussen poll. First, the people who were “persuaded” to support same-sex marriage may simply have been expressing the sentiments that they knew the homosexual canvasser wanted (demanded) to hear, just to get them off of their backs and to avoid any potential conflicts or hostility. The homosexuals have employed a reign of terror with great effect, and as a result, the true feelings of many people are being forced “underground.” Secondly, it could also be that energized and better equipped Christians and marriage traditionalists are now succeeding in changing minds as well; thus, offsetting any gains made by the pro-homosexual apologists. Thirdly, the researchers didn’t really measure the long-term effects of their persuasive methods, especially since the canvassing effort just ended in 2013. Therefore, it is quite possible that the subjects of this study later reverted back to their original viewpoint after having more time to mentally process the deceptions that the homosexual canvassers tried to foist upon them.
In all likelihood, a large percentage of the “low-hanging fruit”– that is, the easily persuadable people — have already been won over to the respective sides of the marriage debate. And from here on out, it’s probably going to be a hard-fought battle in the trenches for the hearts and minds of our fellow American citizens. Christians must, therefore, be equipped to engage and defeat the dogma of the hollow homosexual agenda.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.