The Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance

The Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance July 26, 2013

…is profoundly intolerant. It is not enough that you tolerate homosexuals doing their thing. You. MUST. Approve. If you are silent, it will be taken as disapproval and you will be threatened. If you actually dare to voice the opinion that gay “marriage” is fictional or wrong, you will be punished and hounded from your job to financial ruin. And you will, if you have incorrect thoughts, be barred from participation in government.

It must be so, since the homosexualist movement is an attempt by a group that will always be a small and intensely narcissistic minority to force people, not merely to tolerate their behavior, but to approve of it. Since lots and lots of people will never approve of it, this minority will rankle under that awareness and, as it becomes apparent that the battle for approval cannot be won, the desire will turn more and more toward silencing and ultimately destroying the offenders. Just ask Mary Stachowicz–who you never hear about when the words “gay” and “bullying” are trotted out by gay bullies.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • DM Dawson

    Buckle up believers, we are in for a very long ride.

  • Irksome1

    So, is this “homosexualist movement,” being a small minority, also a minority within the larger gay community or is it a majority of or identical to that community?

    • Kenneth

      That depends. If you’re writing something to try to marginalize gay activists, then “homosexualists” are one-hundredth of one percent. If, on the other hand, you’re trying to attack the entire notion that gay people should have legal rights, then all of them, and all liberals, and pretty much anyone who doesn’t share your own beliefs, is a “homosexualist”, and they’re each one of them shining their jack boots and organizing the trains to send all decent people to the gulag the day after tomorrow.

      • Benjamin 2.0

        It’s disingenuous to claim that the argument is for gay people to have legal rights when they currently have the same ones the rest of us do. I’d suggest saying “new legal rights” instead, but I suppose that wouldn’t have the same unjustified rhetorical sting.

      • SteveP

        “Legal rights” means not paying estate taxes and obtaining
        pension survivor payments . . . if you have got those two, at the very least, you’re a second-class citizen.

  • kenneth

    These “case studies” of homosexualist persecution make hair-raising tales at first glance, but only if you don’t trouble to look into the facts. The perpetrator of the Stachowicz murder was not acting on vigilante imperative from homosexual culture or enforcing societal approval of gays. It was 2002,long before public opinion had turned to its current state of supporting gay marriage. The killer was a screwed up angry loser with a history of childhood abuse. He had no standing as far as I can tell as a gay cause partisan of any kind. Nor did he receive societal approval nor some “gay medal of valor” for his actions. He got life behind bars. Arguing that that would be different today, or in ten years, is nothing more than a call for pre-emptive justice. We had to put them in the gulag because we knew they wanted the same for us. (Also the same rationale for the drone war).

    • ben

      So he didn’t kill her because she disagreed with his lifestyle? Not like he said that or anything…oh wait. I don’t think Mark’s point was that the gay community wants people to be killed that disagree with them, just that they lack tolerance for those that disagree. The “case study” is just one extreme example. Nice try with the misrepresentation.

      • kenneth

        Mark’s clear inference is that the gay rights movement is inextricably linked with widespread, systematic and deliberate persecution of Christians, and that they at least tacitly condone homicide as a legitimate tactic. Stachowicz’s killer is about as representative of the gay rights movement as Anders Breivik was of Christianity. If I’m off base on this, what exactly is the point that is supposed to be illustrated by including his crime in the argument?

        • wlinden

          His point, since you still do not comprehend it (or pretend not to) is that if it had been the other way around, with a lesbian killed by a “straight” man, it would have been trumpeted as a “hate crime”, regardless of whether he was a “loner”, “disturbed”, or “representative”.

          And there are people who characterize Breivik’s crimes as “Christian”.

          • kenneth

            If the contention is that gays get a pass on hate crimes laws, then come out and say it, and let’s have an honest examination of the Stachewicz case on its own merits. What exactly was in the hate crimes statutes in Illinois back in 2002? Did it even include crimes motivated by sexual orientation? If so, what elements would a prosecutor have to show that the killing was driven by such a motive?

            From the basics I have read in the case, it appears sexual orientation was clearly the point of dispute that led to her murder, but did he kill her primarily because of her orientation as a straight person? Did the prosecution even have the option of charging a hate crime or the reasonable prospect of making it stick? I don’t know and neither does anyone here, as far as I can tell. Unless and until we do, it’s dishonest and irresponsible to say that the killer “got a pass” because he was gay and the gay rights mafia cowed society into submission.

            While we’re on this point, let’s see the facts behind the other instances which supposedly illustrate widespread persecution of Christians over SSM opinion. We have an anonymous complaint by someone who says her husband is being professionally destroyed for no other reason than his beliefs. We have no way of knowing what is really going on with him and his workplace. Maybe he’s a model employee and martyr, or maybe he’s asserting his beliefs in an obnoxious and unprofessional manner and violating all sorts of company policies or alienating managers who were looking for reasons to cut people anyway.

            All of this is an awfully weak argument that a Christian hetero can’t get a fair shake in this world and that “homosexualists” are behind it all.

    • wlinden

      This sounds like the usual rationalizations for he wasn’t a “real” homosexual, just like the lefties who beat me up weren’t “real”.

    • Irksome1

      I can agree that the invocation of the Stachowicz case isn’t exactly helpful in that some wish to take an instance of brutal, psychopathic behavior and point to or imply that homosexuality is the culprit, rather than brutal psychopathology. Rather, I think the case can be used to the very limited extent to illustrate media bias or the vapidity of hate crimes legislation. That’s how Bishop Paprocki and Concerned Women for America used it. Notice, though, how little (if anything) this says about homosexuals themselves.

  • kenneth

    Also, coining smarmy new insider terms like “homosexualists” is never the mark of a movement of good will. It puts one’s movement in the same linguistic company as Scientology and Communism, who loved to invent words like “suppresive person”, “vangaurd” and “counterrevolutionary.”

    • Ben

      But calling everyone who disagrees a bigot is a sign of good will?

      • kenneth

        Who did I call a bigot?

        • Ben

          i didn’t say that you did, sorry if it was unclear. But don’t pretend that the labeling of people that don’t agree with gay marriage as bigots isn’t a common thing.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        Disagreeing isn’t a problem, but keep it to yourself. You shouldn’t be walking around in the workplace voicing your disagreement and bringing trouble to work cohesion, as one example.

        If someone disagrees with interracial marriages, that’s fine. Keep it to yourself. You only become considered racist when you start trying to preach your beliefs to others.

        The same is true of the term bigotry.

        • wlinden

          But it’s ok for people to walk around the workplace “disagreeing with” Christianity?

          • Sterling Ericsson

            Disagreeing with religious beliefs is something that has room for discussion, indeed, discussion of the meaning of various religious works and such are common-place and have their own branches of study in religious faiths.

            But disagreeing with inherent parts of people’s existence can’t really be something that discussed in any meaningful manner. Where exactly do you start when having a discussion about any form of marriage and allowing someone to do it? The side against it is just of the opinion that the other person shouldn’t have the rights to such a marriage. How exactly do you discuss that?

            However, at least in terms of religious beliefs, there can also be plenty of people that express opinions of things that are of the same vein, things that cannot really have any meaningful discussion, such as someone who believes that anyone who is a follower of Islam supports murdering anyone who doesn’t believe in their faith. It’s a non-starter discussion.

            Though to be more specific to your question, I don’t believe that people should go about disagreeing with someone’s religion in the workplace either. That also disrupts work cohesion. Unless the discussion is about specific things relating to religious belief that actually enable a proper discussion to be had and not an argument, then it shouldn’t be discussed.

    • Paul

      I don’t think it’s an issue of good or bad will – it’s an issue of frustration. I’m not saying that homosexuals don’t/haven’t had it hard, but now it’s difficult in this respect to be a person of faith in public life. In the span of a few years, the commonly accepted version of marriage has gone from a traditional male-female model, to being debatable, to now being any gender combination. And if you still happen to subscribe to the traditional belief or even think it’s debatable, you are often labeled as being either a bigot or a homophobe. After all, it doesn’t hurt you and why don’t you want everyone to be happy? Nevermind that these are perfectly answerable questions – the other side doesn’t want to hear it.

      • Newp Ort

        It might be more correct to say it is difficult to be a person of some certain faiths. And not even all members of those.

        • Paul

          Right, so too bad for that minority of people, if it is a minority.

          Oh, wait…

          • Newp Ort

            And that is something I did not say at all.

    • Rachel K

      My guess is that Mark is trying to differentiate between “out and proud” gays and gays who live in accordance with Church teaching so that those of us who fit in the latter category don’t feel like we’re all being painted with the same brush. If so, I appreciate the sentiment.

    • PalaceGuard

      “It puts one’s movement in the same linguistic company as Scientology and Communism, who loved to invent words like “suppresive person”, “vangaurd” and “counterrevolutionary.” And behold! Godwin’s Law, v. 2.0!

  • tro

    Careful now, Mark. You’ll get into trouble with Damian Thompson for writing stuff like that:

    • Newp Ort

      I thought Damian Thompson was right on the money. Following criticism of Fr Z’s story, Z reluctantly made an explanation/non-apology, saying he should have said “violent crimes committed by homosexuals are often really brutal,” rather than “homosexuals often commit the most physically brutal crimes that the police see.”

      He hasn’t provided any evidence for the claim that this happens “often” or any more often than with violent crimes committed by heterosexual. Without any evidence, he’s basically saying WE all know how THEY are.

      • tro

        He was making a point about how certain crimes, committed by certain people, are covered in the media.

        I bet you any money you’ve heard of Matthew Shepard: I just know you have.

        I wonder how many readers of this blog have heard of Jesse Dirkhising.

        • Newp Ort

          His point on media reporting has merit.

          Thompson’s complaint that Fr Z chose to make unsubstantiated claims of the brutality of homosexuals in order to make that point also has merit.

          I personally didn’t like Fr Z’s declination to back up his comments and his use of the pathetic non-apology apology.

        • Rebecca Fuentes

          True. The Matthew Shepard case also highlighted how the media enjoy twisting scenarios to fit their PoV. I was a student at the University of Wyoming when Shepard was murdered. The national reporting that followed eagerly portrayed the entire state as violent, ignorant rednecks. It failed utterly to capture the horror and anger that was felt over the murder. It focused on Shepard’s identity as a SSA man, which many felt reduced him to one dimension. Murders are not common in Wyoming. It had been at least 5 years since there was a murder in Laramie. No one I saw in the national media bothered to express that the vast majority of Wyomingites we repulsed by the simple senselessness of the crime, no matter who the victim was. They had their narrative, “innocent gay victim murdered ignorant, homophobic hicks from ignorant homophobic state full of unenlightened gun-nuts.”

        • chezami

          Give the man a cigar!

          • tro

            An exploding one? 😉

          • Newp Ort

            OK, so what do you think about Thompson’s complaint? Fr Z’s non-apology? Would you possibly have any information concerning how “often” violent crimes by gays are brutal, compared to straights? (just curious on this last point, you obvs don’t need to defend a claim you didn’t make)

            And while yes she is a victim of murder, martyr for the faith? Harassing a gay man about “sleeping with boys” (WHICH IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES HER MURDER) is defending the faith? And beatification? I’m not up on the standards, but this seems kinda questionable.

        • kenneth

          Not many, because there is no equivalence between the crimes other than what has been manufactured by conservative media conspiracy theorists. The only similarities at all are that the killers and victims in each case apparently had different sexual orientations.

          Shepard was targeted and killed specifically because he was gay. He lived his short life as a demographic minority which was almost universally targeted for bullying and physical violence, usually with the tacit approval of the societies in which they lived. His murder was actually celebrated publicly by Westboro Baptist on account of his sexual orientation, and the story achieved national prominence because it was effectively a lynching and ignited a national debate about hate crimes laws.

          Dirkhising was the victim of two sexual predators who were gay. They did not target him because they were gay and he was straight. They targeted him because he was available and vulnerable. In fact, one of the killers claimed that they were able to groom the victim for ongoing abuse prior to his death because they believed him to have SSA of his own and in their sick minds was therefore “consenting.”

          This did not become a national news item for the simple reason that there was nothing unusual about it. It was not random. It was not driven by a hatred of one class of people against another. There was nothing remarkable or especially newsworthy of the fact that the perpetrators were gay, or same sex attracted or that they would target a male victim (kinda self-obvious). Apparently, the fact that they were gay should have been nationally played up simply to make sure the gay community got “their share” of bad press.

          Shepard’s murder highlighted the reality of gay people in our society, a reality that is in no way shared by hetero people. Whatever intolerance we might experience as straight folks from gay people, it is assinine to draw equivalence between their experience and our own. Hetero couples have never had a realistic fear of being killed or beaten for kissing in public. We have never had to hide the merest facts of our family life for fear of job loss. We have never been imprisoned, or institutionalized or discharged from the military for our orientation.

  • kirthigdon

    I’ll have to register my usual protest against smearing Visigoths by linking them with gays. Much better to use the term brownshirt as that movement was commanded by and to a great extent composed of militant homosexuals.
    Kirt Higdon

  • Newp Ort

    Here’s some gay menacing for you: Chicago Alderman of a ward with a famously gay neighborhood threatens: “You have to be a good neighbor! Otherwise I’m gonna be up your butt! And I’m gonna tell ya, I’m gonna be up the butt everyday…”

  • RightRevJim
  • Naomi Baker

    This is a good thing. We’ve also shamed people from being openly racist.

  • Sterling Ericsson

    Yes, it is expected that you also approve of interracial marriages, marriages between those of different nationalities, and marriages between those of different faiths.

    Do you think it would be right for people who disagreed with such things to go around in their workplace or in the halls of the government denouncing such marriages, calling out people’s marriages as abominations because they didn’t conform to the individual person’s beliefs on what marriage should be?

    There’s a reason that we have civil rights in the first place. And also a reason why we have separation of church and state.

  • Francisco

    Who am I to judge gay people?