Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem.
As Socrates says, thinking I coined a new term, I defined the word “homosexist” only to find it listed already in 2008 on “Queers United” as “Word of the Gay: Homosexism.” “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations. The “homosexist” viewpoint sometimes leads to discrimination against those who are not homosexual. Labels: breeder, discrimination, gay power, homosexism, homosexist, superior gay, word of the gay.”
The term, now approved by the indigenous population, also appears on a few other handily cryptic websites, www.marriagereality.org.
Webster defines “homosexual” as “of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.” Many homosexuals, aware of their early physical and/or emotional wounding, are now “ex-gays,” while others quietly endure.
However, the suffixes -ist, -ism, -ize connote someone who holds certain principles, doctrines, schools of thought, as in “sexist” or “racist.” Synonyms include “chauvinist, doctrinaire, dogmatist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, monomaniac, opinionated, partisan, persecutor, zealot” – as opposed to “humanitarian, liberal, tolerator.”
“Homosexualists” are zealots, partisans, chauvinists and persecutors, dogmatists in their fanaticism (see “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation”).
Even the left-leaning Wikipedia admits “homosexists” label normal married couples “breeders,” “a term of disparagement used primarily by homosexuals to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring.”
The Urban Dictionary explains the slur “breeder” – “A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder a duh. 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples,” offering as a typical usage:
Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? Their … children make a huge mess and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting …
In our study, “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation” (1995), Dr. Charles Johnson and I analyzed the premier “gay” magazine, The Advocate.
Was The Advocate humanitarian, or homosexist? To answer that question, our research rank-ordered the numbers of most-to-least “In Search of” advertisements. The Advocate published ads and essays on sex with boys and on how to seduce “straight” men and boys. I have sanitized the language for this column.
As of this writing, online books and video guides on “seducing straight men” are being sold, including such copy as:
“GAY SEDUCTION”
“LEARN THE ART OF SEDUCING STRAIGHT MEN”
“How To Seduce Straight Guys: After Reading this Guide, YOU will have the confidence to SEDUCE ANY Straight Guy.”
Our research included an analysis of Bruce Rodgers’ renowned “Queens’ Vernacular: a Gay Lexicon” (1972).
“Encyclopedia of Homosexuality,” editor Wayne Dynes, says “QV” is the foremost gay lexicon, “reissued without change as ‘Gay Talk.'” “The Joys of Gay Sex” authors Silverstein and White agree, as does homosexualist icon Dennis Altman.
However, two brave lesbians protested that the book recollects “misogynistic … concepts and values.” (www.sex-lexis.com)
Misogynistic homosexists?
Since objective researchers rarely study the homosexist press, few would consider “gay” zealots to be sexist misogynists. However, the “Queens’ Vernacular” and “Gay Talk” include only hostile, bigoted, fanatic, maniac, partisan, obscene words to define normal love, marriage, women, men, military men, childbirth, and children.
In 1828, Noah Webster’s “An American Dictionary of the English Language” included 12,000 new words distinguishing Americans from Britons. Webster said, “A national language is a band of national union”; its words shape national thoughts and actions.
Like Webster, homosexualist lexicographer Bruce Rodgers published “A Gay Lexicon” of 12,000 unique words to identify “gay” thoughts and actions. Rodgers’ dictionary offers a “religious” worldview, a “gay” national language for a “gay” nation completely unlike the heterosexual, straight nation. Our research question was: What is the “national language” of the 12,000 words of “A Gay Lexicon”?
Ranked by “QV” words, homosexist life most focused on: 1) sex with boys, 2) prostitution, 3) no time, anonymous sodomy, 3) phallic size, and 5) sadism. Marriage as fidelity or permanence was statistically non-existent.
Webster has one phrase and six words to define boy: “Young unmarried man, fellow, guy, lad, stripling, youth, youngster.” The “QV” has 254 words for “boy,” largely predatory, typical of a doctrinaire homosexism. For example:
Chicken, a young recruit; any boy under the age of consent, heterosexual, fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality; Pluck some feathers: rip off a drumstick; skin some chicken. babette; baby; baby buggy; baby butch; baggage-boy; bait; bait the hook, etc.
Prison had 223 words, 182 words described men as girls, masturbation 147, women 134, military sex 82, and straights 63. Words for women were bigoted and mean, including 67 words for “whore” and 26 for “b—h.” Even sex with military men includes “seacow” as a girl with a sailor boyfriend. As to “straights,” a man who loves a woman is “pig suck.” A “pimp” is “a heterosexual woman’s legally married spouse … what gay men really desire is not another gay man, it’s a straight man.”
If a “homosexual man who has turned to women” is “pig suck,” if boys are “chickens” to be “barbecued,” and if “mother” is one who “introduced another to homosexual activity,” then it is fair to say that a tyrannical, doctrinaire zealotry lurks within “Spirit Day,” a hostile spirit of “homosexism.”
The 12,000 words in the “QV” and “Gay Talk” objectively identify “gay” activists as homosexists, as intolerant aggressors against women and normal sexuality. As “Queers United” says, “Homosexism” is the belief that gay or lesbian identities are superior to bisexual and/or straight orientations.”
Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 11, 2011. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.
So, our primary aim in working together ought to be to preserve and enhance the arena of open, honest public discussion of the great issues of life, not to shut it down with coercion, mind-control, or delusionary “relative” truth and pseudo-pluralism. Only the powers of darkness profit from our fear of discussing “religion” and “politics” among ourselves. It is time we grew up. Objective truth is the only possible level playing field on which any two persons can communicate. Any other ground means the subversion of truth and therefore of communication and communion.
Jews and Christians believe (or should believe) that God Himself has created this level playing field and is inviting His creatures onto it, as in “Come, let us reason together…” (Isaiah 1:18)
The contest is vigorous. Secular materialism, or naturalism, wants the world to believe that it has both a moral and ontological foundation, an order discoverable by unaided reason. But, I think it can be shown, secular materialism has no capacity to explain the original beginnings of all things, and thus no capacity to explain why inductive reasoning, the very foundation of empirical science, works—a fatal flaw.
The secular world, in short, cannot deal with singularities and contingencies (which is what the empirical world is all about) to make them orderly. When it is not busy denying, it must assume, because it cannot explain, all the metaphysical realities of life in order to get on with its chosen business of discovering the truth about the empirical world.
By singularities, I mean things which just seem to be there on their own, not logically necessary and not necessarily deducible from other things or conditions.
And contingencies are, similarly, those things which have no ontological stability of their own, and thus require ontological explanation. They could have been other than they are because their very being (the Greek ontos) comes from something outside of themselves.
A world full of singularities and contingencies which have no ontological basis is an irrational world, a world in which no predictions can be made, a world in which no explanations can be made about why things are the way they are. And thus, as Stark so starkly points out, no science.
Dr. Earle Fox is IAI’s Senior Fellow in Philosophy of Science and the Worldview of Ethical Monotheism.
This article is an extract from the Preface (section A-3-c) of Dr. Fox’s book A Personalist Cosmology in Imago Dei: Personality, Empiricism & God, Vol. I. See also Dr. Fox’s new Book Abortion, the Bible and America.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
The beginning of true wisdom is understanding your limitations so you can discern the good from the bad and develop the common sense to choose the good.
One government bureaucrat, who had been very clever as a child, started to think that government workers knew more then those citizens for whom he worked. He admitted that elected officials were prone to corruption, but bureaucrats were special.
Did they know how to run a company? Probably not, but they could tell people running companies how to run them.
Did they know how to cure my wife’s disease – cicatricial pemphigoid? Of course not, but they could tell her doctors how to treat her.
Could they make a great Hollywood movie? Maybe, but doubtful.
In fact, they all were singularly incompetent, but they thought they could run other people’s lives.
So, the cure is simple:
Before they go into government, make each potential bureaucrat do something else –anything productive – for at least seven years. Then, make sure they don’t stay in government more than five years, and test them frequently for bureaucratic arrogance.
Furthermore, they should all have to watch THE LIVES OF OTHERS, read about Austrian Economics, raise a family, run a business, work on a farm, and ask forgiveness constantly for having their cohorts at the IRS steal our money to pay for their service to the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
Finally, they must not receive a pension, no way, no how!
Of course, another solution is not to give so much power to government and government bureaucrats, including judges and the judicial/legal system, in the first place!
After all, as God makes perfectly clear in 1 Samuel 8:1-20, big government and high taxes are signs of slavery.
So, maybe the Christian church should take back all of the power that modern governments have stolen in the last 150 years or so. To that end, we perhaps should look to what Moses had to say to the assembly or church of God’s chosen people about the power of the church and its leaders in Deuteronomy 16:18-20:
“Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.”
Amen! So be it!
Editor’s Note: Dr. Tom Snyder, editor of MOVIEGUIDE® contributed to this column.
Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.
The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.
