07 Jul '15 18:43>1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you watched the video, you'd realize the silly position you've put yourself in by arguing the wrong point.
So you object to your definition being changed, but your definition remains a secret.
[b]The point of the video which you didn't but give a token glance to was the opposite.
I made an offer to watch the video, but you have not agreed to my conditions. Are they not reasonable conditions? Or do you not really want me to watch the video?
I no ...[text shortened]... to: 'If they legalize gay marriage then I can't bitch about it without being labelled a hater'.
The video announces from nearly the beginning how the speaker intends to discuss an ancillary aspect of the legalization of homosexual marriage, namely, an attack on free thought/conscience/speech.
Sloganeers (We're here, we're queer, get used to it) and other confrontational pro-homosexual movements of the late 60's-90's took a very strategic turn toward the end of the 90's, becoming a politically-savvy grassroots organization with a specific game plan to change the course of history for an exceedingly small minority of the population (in the US, estimates are as low as less than 2% of the people are indentified as homosexual, although most people who are asked their opinion on the number have assumed the number in the teens to mid-20's).
They realized that a bull-rush of insistence for acceptance of their lifestyle had historically been met with firm to extreme resistance, so they opted for a far more subtle approach.
By using a very media-friendly approach, they softened the message and changed the conversation from being a question of morality to a question about civil rights.
By all accounts, this was a brilliant strategy.
Part of their message was fashioned to address the fears of the opposition as it relates to the concerns of social policy and individual conscience.
The opposition was concerned how a reneging on traditional marriage structure would lead to an expectation of wholesale acceptance of homosexuality.
To counteract this, the strategy included verbiage which spoke of their solitary desire to marry: no one is going to force any one else to change their personal views or the expression thereof.
As the 20 or so minutes of this video highlights, nothing could be further from the truth.
The goal from the beginning was to obtain acceptance by others for their immoral lifestyle--- somewhat expected, humanly speaking: who wants to feel like what they're doing is wrong or condemned?
But the concerns the opposition raised about social policy and individual conscience are being proven all over the globe, just as we are seeing the true intents of the pro-homosexual agenda playing out as expected.