A Response to the Gay Agenda: Too Little, Too Late

Guest article by Valerie Protopapas

This article was written at least a decade ago and was actually contemplated well before it was written. Even at that time, the “end game” was obvious to anyone who had given thought to the matter, but nobody considered it a matter of deep concern. How wrong we were! Today we are in the throes of a war that is being waged to put into place the above named agenda. Some of that war doesn’t include actual shooting. It is taking place in the very cradle of Western Civilization in Europe and the New World and is quietly destroying the Christian Faith first in the West with the Roman Catholics and the various Protestant denominations but it is also reaching out its dark tendrils to the Church of the East, the Orthodox found especially in Russia. If that Church falls, there will no longer be a legitimate Christian Church based upon Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Fathers, leaving true believers adrift without the Ark of God’s Church for salvation.

Below is a description of the progression of the Gay Agenda, how it was originally presented and the reaction of ordinary people to its presentation. As in all evil things, the matter was gradual, often making use of the commands of Christ Himself to be “loving” to our fellow man and forgiving of his sins against us. But while we embraced Christ’s instruction to be “as gentle as doves,” we forgot or never considered His caution to be “as wise as serpents” and our own foolishness has led to our downfall. Behold!

The Conquest of the Gay Agenda

1st Demand: All we want is to be left alone. We want to be free from assaults by the cops, bully-boys and other “straights” who hate us. After all, we’re a poor and small minority with no power in the society. We need at least to be as protected against attack as any other American!

Cultural Response: Most Americans agreed. Decent people don’t like bullies and besides, many also believed that it was none of our business what consenting adults did behind closed doors as long as it wasn’t publicly displayed or otherwise advocated! Anyway, religious proscriptions against homosexuality did not include an excuse for harassment and violence.

However, at the time most Americans did not know (because it was not reported in the press) that gays were very powerful in many facets of American society including the arts and entertainment and fashion industries while their median income was considerably above average; that is, most were not poor by any definition.

Result: Demand accepted.

2nd Demand: All we want is to be tolerated. We don’t want to be condemned outright for being what nature made us. We only want the same toleration as do other people who are considered “different.” Remember, we represent a good 10% of the population!

Response: This was more problematic, especially for Bible believing Christians and Jews. I won’t mention Muslims here because at the time of the rise of the Gay Movement, the numbers of that religion in the West were too small to be of consequence culturally. To tolerate is not the same as to ignore. As well, the laws on the books against sodomy and other unnatural sexual practices did not affect only homosexuals. These laws were intended to support a decent moral society; they were not directed solely at “gays.” To remove them from the books indicated a social acceptance of what had heretofore been rejected.

But in the end, most Americans decided that while they rejected these practices, it was none of our business what consenting adults did behind closed doors (see First Demand). Yet, it should have been a warning to the culture that homosexuals were prepared to lie to advance their cause—the lie in this case being that their percentage in the population is around 2%, not 10%—and they knew it! The numbers were inflated to produce a larger affected population in response to the “fairness factor.” It was reasoned that the more people affected, the greater the need to acquiesce to the demand—though why that should be the case was not explained.

Result: Demand generally accepted—but with considerable caveats.

3rd Demand: 1st step: We want to be considered equal to or the same as heterosexuals. We want to be “out of the closet” and openly demonstrate our sexual choices without any negative “backlash” from straights or the society. We don’t want to be “discriminated against” in ANY area including employment in those institutions that reject our “lifestyle” for so-called “moral” reasons such as churches. We want the psychologists and psychiatrists to remove our sexual preferences from the list of unnatural behaviors and/or psychological illnesses and to declare homosexuality to be as “normal” as heterosexuality—and we want that recognition to be culture-wide and accepted in EVERY aspect of life, secular AND religious.

Response: Line crossed. Those for whom homosexuality is a grave sin rejected this demand outright. But the cultural establishment—having long since rejected traditional religion and morals—readily agreed. Many gays are wealthy, prominent and powerful and their advocacy was welcomed in the political arena. Now, as they had been able to “come out,” they no longer needed to fear being “outed.” As a result they would be able to use their influence and wealth to press their agenda without fearing any negative response to their “lifestyle.”

3rd Demand: 2nd step: We want to be considered SUPERIOR to the “natural order” that we reject. We are smarter and more talented than straights—except, of course, for those who acquiesce to our demands—and therefore, we deserve to have our lifestyle recognized as PREFERABLE to that of straights, or more correctly, non-gays! We especially want access to children at younger and younger ages through the educational system in order to assure that young “gays” are not discouraged from reaching their full homosexual potential. Of course, Freud believed that homosexuality was a matter of arrested development that occurred during the very early behavioral period. Start indoctrinating children early enough and you WILL increase the “gay” population! As well, many homosexuals are attracted to children—remember NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) – as is now painfully obvious to even the most blind.

In short, we REJECT Western civilization and its patriarchal rules and traditions. We want “gay marriage” not because it makes us feel equal, but because WE WANT TO DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE as it presently exists (admitted to by a lesbian in a video). We REJECT your society and DEMAND that you accept OUR understanding of how life should be lived and through the law, force Christian churches to cease preaching against us and also accept us in their doctrines.

Response: Of course, traditional, orthodox Christians and Jews—along with a lot of other “straights”—utterly rejected this Demand but sadly, there are so many powerful allies of the Gay Agenda—for instance, most leftist groups identify strongly with gays—that those who reject that Agenda will not only be in the minority but persecuted as well.

Result: Our acceptance is no longer requested or demanded or, in fact, required; they have won.

Point to Ponder: No society that has accepted homosexuality as normal and equal in nature to heterosexuality has long survived this choice.

Post Scriptum: The victory of the Gay Agenda has not completed the destruction of Western morality; it has merely led to the “trans-gender” and “trans-human” agendas that followed quickly upon its victory. And as the organs of society are transformed under these perversions, more and worse will follow. There are already hints of demand for such outrages as cannibalism and human sacrifice while monuments to Satan and pagan deities are erected in the seats of Christian culture. Can the end of our civilization be far away? Barring Divine intervention, I think not.

——-

Editor’s Note: As a confessed language curmudgeon, I would call it the “homosexual” agenda rather than the “gay” agenda. In fact, one might well argue that getting people to abuse the language in this way by using a word that suggests happiness instead of the accepted proper word was the opening successful battle in the war for homosexual ascendancy. Like calling what happened on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol building an “insurrection,” calling people who engage in such activities “gay” does violence to the language in a very Orwellian fashion.

David Martin