'Big Gay' not so big anymore?!
Publisher's note: Mr. Dunkin is an occasional contributor to The Patriots Press. In this very well thought out article, he brings up and solidifies some valid points that I recently discussed concerning how the homosexual lobby, "Big Gay" as he calls it, has forced their way into society through various methods including legislation, social media, etc. I believe those methods are being used by child predators in order to somehow gain cultural acceptance.
Tim Dunkin: Recent events have not been kind to the radical homosexual lobby and its efforts to impose “homo-normalization” onto America. For years, Big Gay has given the appearance of being an unstoppable juggernaut as it rolled from one court victory to the next, leaving behind it a wreckage of ruined lives of people who had the temerity to not show enough deference to the gay agenda. Yet, there are a few recent signs that this might be changing. It brings up the question, “Are average, everyday Americans finally tired enough of being bullied, hectored, accused, attacked, shouted at, threatened, and otherwise hounded by groups like GLAAD and other radical homosexual elements in our popular and political cultures that they’re finally willing to openly oppose it?” While the jury is still out on whether it will be a flash in the pan or the start of a trend, the answer seems to be “Yes.”
Hints were seen as early as the middle of 2012, when the Christian-owned and operated fast food company Chick-Fil-A came under attack from the homofascists because it’s president – an evangelical Christian – had the temerity to state that he opposed gay marriage. For simply stating a personal belief based upon his deeply-held religious convictions, Big Gay declared war and determined to destroy his company. Boycotts and protests were staged. But the radical gay bullies were mightily surprised when on August 1, designated “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day,” millions of Americans flooded restaurants all across America (even in supposedly bright blue states like Massachusetts and California). Meanwhile, the homosexual activist counter-protests fizzled, and indeed were such embarrassing failures that organizers had to reset their protest dates before finally just letting them quietly fade away.
The most recent homo-fascist effort at silencing dissent and suppressing the free speech of those who disagree with them came last month when GLAAD and other organizations tried to coerce A&E into firing Phil Robertson, patriarch of the family at the center of that network’s popular show Duck Dynasty over his disagreement with homosexuality expressed in a completely unrelated venue. At the time, I wrote about the affair and wondered if this would end up being yet another fold to the gay lobby, or if freedom of speech and religion would win a rare victory. Events since that time have shown this to be the case. There was a massive outpouring of support for the Robertson family, their Duck Commander line of paraphernalia sold out all across the country, companies like Cracker Barrel that appeared to be throwing the Robertsons under the bus saw quick and powerful backlashes, and A&E saw the light and took Phil Robertson off of his “indefinite hiatus” that was supposed to be his punishment for crime-think. GLAAD and other left-wing agitation groups received a black eye from the whole matter.
A couple of other examples have come to light recently of which many may not be as aware. The first involves former Minnesota Viking’s punter Chris Kluwe. Recently, Kluwe attempted to get himself back into the limelight by claiming that he was fired as the Vikings’ punter because he had come out in support of gay marriage and had run afoul of several team coaches, including special team coordinator Mike Priefer, who Kluwe claims made “homophobic” remarks during practices and team meetings. In the climate that Big Gay has been trying to create nationwide, such an accusation should have been enough to get Priefer unceremoniously dumped from the team and Kluwe rehired with a pay raise and an option to lead sensitivity training for all players and coaching staff.
Not this time, however. Kluwe has acknowledged that his tirade did nothing to harm Priefer, the other accused coaches, or the Vikings as a team (not that they need any help on that score). Kluwe has received zero support from anyone in the NFL. Indeed, the Vikings have stood by their man and are refusing to throw Priefer under the bus, and Kluwe himself is acknowledging that his agitation effort is failing, and it increasingly appears that there simply is no evidence to back up his charges. Another effort to use the talisman of gay power has failed.
In all likelihood, Kluwe was not released from the Vikings because he came out in support of gay marriage, but simply because he was an overpaid, mediocre punter who finished 22nd in the league last year and who gave up four touchdowns off of punt returns in one season back in 2008, which has to be some kind of record. He could be replaced by a rookie punter who could do just as well, but be paid a quarter the salary.
The second example comes out of Utah, where a federal judge recently struck down Utah’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman (yet another example of how states that “allow” gay marriage do so because it is judicially imposed upon them). In a surprising twist, the Supreme Court stepped in and blocked the lower court’s ruling in response to a request for a stay by the state government, at least until the Court can give a full review. Even more remarkably, instead of simply using the legal limbo as an excuse to say, “Oh well, they’re married now, what can we do? You don’t want us to annul a bunch of marriages, do you?” Instead, the state government took the bold move of doing just that.
While I understand that Utah is a pretty conservative state, other conservative states where politicians have faced similar quandaries have seen their officials go the wrong way and fold to leftists pressure groups operating outside the specific bounds of the law. That the governor and other politicians chose to take the “unpopular” route of upholding the actual law instead of bending it to appease the homosexual lobby is a huge step forward for the rule of law and genuine liberty.
Now, we ought to ask the question of why these things, each in their own way, seem so surprising. Why is it that when Big Gay suffers a setback, we are astounded that someone actually stood firm for the principles of the rule of law, liberty, natural law, and traditional marriage?
What it all comes down to is the fact that the cultural and political power that Big Gay wields is not based on actual numbers. Instead, it is founded upon the psychological sense of “inevitability” it has successfully garnered for itself, coupled with a campaign to attach social stigma to and retribution against anyone who gets out of line, which I touched on in my previous article.
There is actually some scientific basis to all of this. Social psychologists have long known that human beings are wired towards conformity. In 1951, a social psychologist named Solomon Asch performed a series of experiments in which he would take a test subject and place them in a room with several other people, all of whom were working with Asch (unbeknownst to the test subject). He exposed the groups to a series of pictures in which a vertical line appeared, and was then placed next to a picture with three vertical lines (A, B, and C), only one of which was the same length as the test line. Participants were asked to state which line from A, B, or C matched the length of the test line. Varying numbers of Asch’s associates (but always a majority of them) would then disagree with the test subject (i.e. by choosing an obviously wrong answer), and Asch would measure how often test subjects would change their answers to conform to the associates who were purposefully choosing the wrong line.
What Asch found out was that 74% of his test subjects would conform to the majority at least once out of several trials. On average, people would conform about a third of the time, and the amount of conformity increased as more and more of Asch’s associates sided with each other and against the test subject.
Other experiments along this line have also approached this subject from the opposite direction. It has been shown that when faced with seemingly unanimous opposition from a researcher’s associates in this type of experiment, a test subject is extremely likely to do what social psychologists call “conforming,” the technical definition of which here means that the subject will inwardly disagree with the unanimous opposition, but will outwardly agree so as to avoid the stigma of being in the minority. However, it has been found that test subjects are much less likely to conform to the majority when even one of the research associates would agree with the test subject over and against the others. The level of conformity drops even more when two, three, and more of the plants began to agree with the experimental subject.
What does all of this mean? It essentially tells us that the average person will outwardly agree with and appear to support something, even when they really do not, if they believe that “everyone” is against them. Some people will always acquiesce and side with the majority, even when they know as a matter of fact and conviction that the majority is wrong. Conversely, there are many who will conform in the face of unanimous opposition, but who will refuse to do so if they feel that they have any support whatsoever.
This type of psychological manipulation is what groups like GLAAD, the Human Rights Coalition (HRC), and other elements of Big Gay have been trying to use to bolster their appearance of support.
Let’s face it – while many of us on the Right are committed to principle and will stand firm against any amount of opposition, most people are not like that. Many people, when they are constantly bombarded with the message that the positions and principles they hold are “homophobic,” “evil,” “mean-spirited,” and “hateful” will go silent and conform outwardly. They see what they believe to be a majority against them and they give in to it, at least in their outward profession – and the more people outwardly conforming, the greater the appearance of the supposed majority. Further, when many people see a constant drumbeat of unanimous support for the gay agenda in the popular culture coming out of liberal Hollywood with its “stars,” on all the “hip” TV shows, from all the various rock, pop, hip-hop and other musicians, when they are constantly barraged with news story after news story about this or that celebrity “coming out of the closet” – well, they see this and start to subconsciously assume that “everybody” is against them, so they hunker down and go with the flow.
And this is why the recent reverses to Big Gay that I noted above are so important. When people see Chick-Fil-A and Phil Robertson successfully flouting the strictures imposed upon us by homosexualist political correctness, it encourages others to seek to do so as well. As I pointed out in my previous article, people who outwardly conform will nevertheless take an opportunity such as that given by Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day to engage in disobedience en masse. All it takes are a few examples of people sticking by their guns and opposing the homosexualist agenda and many, many more people will desert their so-called “support” for things like gay marriage. Clearly, then, the answer to what we see going on right now is simply to become more vocal about our opposition to the gay agenda. The more noise we make, the more people realize that they’re not alone in standing for traditional marriage and opposing the imposition of the homosexualist legal regime.
I will state again – I firmly believe that the recent upswing in support for the gay agenda is not really real. It is like a soap bubble. Puncture it with the needle of vocal and consistent opposition and it may well burst.
† - Addendum: Since the time this article was originally written, Attorney General Holder, in an unprecedented move, has unilaterally extended federal recognition to the currently-annulled gay “marriages” in Utah, unprecedented because the federal government routinely waits until an issue has been settled in the courts and the litigation process is complete before acting. This creates the unusual situation where the federal government recognizes these marriages as legal, but the state of Utah does not. However, this does not, I believe, undermine the basic point that was being made in my article at this point.
Click here for a related article by the Publisher.