Merry Christmas 2013
Merry Christmas 2013
Duck Dynasty as a wonderful moral Christmas present
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Christmas Eve, 2013
Just a week before Christmas, the Spirit of the Christian Faith has arisen to a degree unseen for decades. It began when a reality program personality, in an interview, made observations about his faith and the Bible, principally directed at queers – those who have aberrational lifestyles.
In just a few days, the forces of the oppressed people of Christian Faith, or simply, Christian moral values, have come together by the millions to denounce those who would use social, political, or economic pressure to suppress what has been foundational to this country, and land, for nearly four centuries.
Under the guise of political correctness, “tolerance”, and verbicide (the changing of the meaning of a word to effect a social or legal change), our country has been chicaned (past tense of chicanery) into a submissive state, in terms of moral values.
Let’s look at how verbicide works (See Freedom of Speech). We take a perfectly innocuous word, having a meaning that is readily accepted and has a positive connotation, such as:
Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary (1978)
gay: 1.) happily excited; MERRY, 2 a.) BRIGHT, LIVELY, b.) brilliant in color, 3.) given to social pleasures; also, LICENTIOUS
Now, that third definition may border on immorality, though it is the least significant, and most often referred to the “gay blades” of the aristocracy.
Merriam-Webster on line (2013)
gay: 1 a.) happily excited: merry <in a gay mood>, b.) keenly alive and exuberant: having or inducing high spirits <a bird’s gay spring song>, 2 a.) bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>, b.) brilliant in color , 3.) given to social pleasures; also : licentious, 4 a.) homosexual <gay men>, b.) of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>
In just over thirty years, we have a fourth definition, that, though in fourth place in Merriam-Webster, has become, in common usage, the only remaining definition of the word, as any other definition would tend to assign an improper connotation to the use of the word.
An example would be, say, the old “Donna Reed Show” (1958-1966), where, on occasion, the Stones would be invited to a “gay party” (actual expression in a number of the series episodes). Of course, it was not a party of queers, rather, it was a party where the atmosphere would be jovial, and there would be humor in the telling of clean jokes.
However, if one were to say that they were going to a “gay party”, today, some would be excited, however most, being those of Christian moral values, would look askance at the person who made such claim.
What has happened is that a change in definition has had the affect of changing the moral and social acceptance of a lifestyle that might best be left in “the closet”.
Once the structure — the verbicide — has come into play, the next step is a demand for tolerance (how can you demand tolerance, isn’t that, in itself, intolerance?).
This call for tolerance came out because of the interview, mentioned above, when GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) responded to what Phil Robertson said, when explaining his religious beliefs. He explained that there is a logical fit between certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a “not logical” fit. He then paraphrases Corinthians, in the Bible, when he lumps “the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers” into one lot, those that will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
GLAAD spokesperson, Wilson Cruz, condemned his Robertson’s words, saying that “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.” I do find it interesting when a spokesman for queers asserts his understanding of the Bible and its moral values, contrary to the wording in that Bible.
But, wait, GLAAD admits, by their organization’s name, that they are “Against Defamation”. So, they, then, defame Robertson for paraphrasing an ancient source of moral values, when they, GLAAD, have probably never taken the time to read, let alone understand, that book that was fundamental to the origination of our country and moral laws.
Instead, he reverts to a one-sided attempt at “tolerance” (the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with), which in his statement, is demonstrative of intolerance. Cruz continues, “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.” Interesting that the presumption of what the majority believes is coming from one that is desperately seeking acceptance, and presumes to speak for those who have, as a result of both verbicide and “tolerance”, simply remained silent (tolerant) for the sake of “political correctness”.
Perhaps, however, the greatest gift that Providence has given to mankind, in recent times, is this demonstration of the deviation from holding moral principles and values, and the necessity to begin to stand, once again, for those values that are at the very heart of this great nation.
Like fireworks bursting forth, to celebrate the birth of Jesus, the Christ, the rebirth of moral values, and against political correctness, is now bursting forth in a brilliance, and with a magnitude, that will propel us forward an return us to the moral nation that was once, and will be again, the greatest nation on this earth.
With that in mind, let me wish to all,
Mr. Hunt….I’ve seen some of your commentary at Western Rifle Shooters. Just found your blog.
I have made the same argument as you, regarding the verbicide of the word “gay”. I refuse to use “gay” in reference to homosexuals.
I plan on reading more of your blog, regularly. Merry Christmas (belated) to you.
Dan,
Thank you!
And, I hope that you will find much more of interest, as you continue to read.
A belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, as well.
Gay rights is not a “bedroom issue.” It is a matter of respect for other people’s right to freedom of association. How straight people feel about it morally is a different issue — I want my civil rights to be recognized by a secular government. Religious governments don’t work out too good. Places like that cut out your tongue if you say the wrong thing.
Why should I have to spend a lifetime hiding who I associate with or whom I love? Straight people don’t. In fact, they celebrate it. Our whole culture is just riddled with rampant and blatant heterosexuality to the point that very often I think, “Why can’t they just keep that in the bedroom”?
I know straight people can’t keep it under wraps though because it is not just a “bedroom issue” is it? There is a lot more to the heterosexual lifestyle than what you do in the bedroom, no?
There are the baby showers, the bridal showers, the engagement announcements in the newspaper, the issues of joint tax returns, the in-laws, the death wills, the anniversaries, the holding hands and kissing in public, young couples obviously on a date, prom night, talking about the opposite sex with a friend in public and being overheard, the kids, the joint property, the joint bank accounts, the youtube vid of your wedding receptions, the youtube vid of the birth of your first child, the place setting at the jewelers shop the bride picks out for the wedding presents, the loud, drunk bachelor party for the groom, the obligatory sex scene in every movie, the Cosmopolitan magazine cover of “49 new ways to please him in bed,” the death announcements of “he is survived by his wife, Ellen, and 4 children blah blah,” etc.
I am an American; I should have the same right to be so joyfully recognized. How come y’all hog all the attention? I count too. How come I don’t get to publish, videotape, sing about, paint, sculpt, or announce my victories and sorrows? Why must I be kept in the attic like the retarded child no one wants to see?
Maybe if straight people would stop thinking about our bedroom activity and begin to see homosexuality more in the light of “social orientation,” “freedom of association,” or maybe even “creed,” it would help resolve much of the straight world’s (they own the whole world it seems) great discomfort about us.
I came hear to read your updates on the Bundy Ranch; I appreciate your insightful articles about that issue — then, I happened to see your Christmas article and thought I would respond. Be well.
It is not a bedroom issue, on that I agree. However, when queers stayed in the closet, they didn’t flaunt themselves in public. They lived together, they had their own bars and other gathering places, but they kept their affections, which are offensive to many, off of the streets.
You want your “civil rights”. Do you have any idea what “civil rights” are? They are the rights that the government gives you — and are not among those rights recognized in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There is only one right in the Constitution that imposes upon another person or persons. That is the right to a jury trial. It imposes on others since they have to serve on the jury. But, then, for the sake of justice, I would serve gladly as I would want others to serve gladly, if I were on trial
Civil rights, on the other hand, and all of those that come under the request of the queer community, impose an obligation on other to do what they might not want to do, so that you can do what you want to do. That may be a “right” for you, but it is a burden for me.
Nobody says that you have to hide if you are queer. It is your flaunting that perversion, yes, I consider it a perversion, that is the problem. Do I have any perversions? Yes, I probably do. But, I don’t flaunt those perversions in public or on the streets.
Our society IS riddled with heterosexuality. Hell, heterosexuality is the physiological norm. Absent such behavior, who of us would be here today? Do you know something that I don’t? Have you ever heard that opposites attract? That is true in a normal situational where the opposites, the X-X chromosomes and the X-Y chromosomes, attracted, come together, and procreate. That procreation (heterosexuality) is the beginning of life, including your own. So, the fact that it is rampant and blatant is why you are here, writing in support of something that would not have brought you into existence. And, yes, most often, it is “committed” in the bedroom — not on the streets.
You regress, again, to “hiding”. You must be young since you don’t seem to understand that queers didn’t hide, they simply lived their lives “in the closet”, and were quite happy with that situation. The problem arose when they wanted the government to intervene and give them yes, I will say it, “economic advantage” over others. That means that someone has to pay because you are “gay”. It means that you can flaunt, in a workplace, that you are gay — which might, understandably, offend some that realize that we are all a byproduct of what you would call a “straight” lifestyle — the source of all life.
And, yes, there is l a lot more that we do that is public. We do celebrate our “lifestyle”, as that is a celebration of life, itself; yours and mine” Are you not happy enough with your life to celebrate that which created it? If not, you have my sympathy.
I would have no objection if you had a baby shower, and invited your friends. However, if you do so, I would like to be invited. Scientific curiosities have always amazed me. Wedding notices and articles in magazine, well, perhaps they write to an audience that chooses to read such. It doesn’t require any more than the desire and means for you to publish your own publications, rather than you force yourself not the publishers that have found what they want to do. You seem to think that, for example, a gun magazine should have to be required, by law, to publish an anti-gun advertisement, if the advertiser is willing to pay for it — and maybe even have a preferential rate because he is advertising an objection to the purpose.
There have been queer movie since before I came along, and that was a long time ago. Of course, they were not sold at magazine stands because the people that owned the stands didn’t want to sell the. But, you would impose upon him a legal obligation to do what he didn’t want to do so that you could do what you want to do.
So, it appears that you want to hide from the reality of what we all are, living beings, as you want to emulate us and are chagrined when you cannot
As a final thought, it is the effect that your desire to be like us, using legal (not necessarily lawful, means that has a much greater impact on the normal people that I object to. To understand this, you would have to read Freedom of Speech
I am not young. I am in my 60s, and I DID have to hide. There are places in Texas that I would still pretend to be straight just to protect myself.
Homosexuality was a felony in 1974 in Texas. Ten to twenty years in prison. It is still a misdemeanor in Texas, and in Dallas — two people of the same sex living together, gay or not, have to have two bedrooms or they be can be busted under the Dallas bedroom law.
In many places in Texas, two people of the same sex dancing at a gay bar will get busted under the city public lewdness laws quite frequently. I saw a young man reach over to platonically pat his friend (friend, not lover) on the back in a gay bar. Cops came in right that moment. He was busted. Another friend of mine got a DUI (I don’t know if he was drunk or not), but 5 cops in Austin gang-raped him jail. He had a nervous breakdown and has had to live in an institution since that day.
In Austin, I was beat up by four cops. They nabbed me coming out of a gay bar, hauled me down to the station, and kicked the shit out of me.
I just don’t think you realize how much we need to be “accepted” as citizens with rights by society so that we can be safe.
Due to continuing hate crimes, maybe keeping it to ourselves is no longer an option. We need the exposure so these abuses stop.
Maybe you just don’t understand how bad it is out here for us.
Frankly, your arguments did not make any sense to me, and I suspect my arguments did not make any sense to you either. Just drop it. Sorry, I bothered you.
Then, the wonder of this country, you can move to where you don’t have such a problem. Don’t assume that you can force them to accommodate you. This whole situation may blow up in your faces, as the steam builds in those who were satisfied with the past, yet are revolted by what the queer community is imposing on the normal people.
However, in Rome, do as the Romans.
In Texas, do as the Texans.
There is another wonder, too. I can move to a country that does not have people who can’t adapt to the present and want to impose a religious government on the rest of us.
Get this straight. Nobody is trying to impose a religious government on you.
You are trying to impose your morality that has a moral foundation for over two hundred years.
Now, you can try to spin that, but reality is, well, reality.
If you don’t like it here, then find a place where you like it. Try one of those Muslim countries, They seem to get the support of the Liberals that tend to support your effort to impose on the rest of us.
I sure hope you are not example of what this country is becoming. Because, you don’t seem very nice. Muslim countries are rather fascist, so I think not.
Homosexuals are not trying to impose anything on you. They just want the same inalienable rights as you do.
Look I am leaving now; I just don’t think you know enough about gays to even speak to the subject.
Maybe you should pray on it.
Bye.
CP, you said, “Homosexuality…is still a misdemeanor in Texas.” If you had read Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), you would have known that Texas Penal Code §21.06 was declared unconstitutional by way of the incorporation doctrine pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Even before this decision, “homosexual conduct” was considered only a Class C misdemeanor, which according to Penal Code § 12.23, is only a maximum fine of $500.
Openly carrying a handgun or anyone selling liquor on a Sunday (or beer during prohibited hours on a Sunday) is a Class A misdemeanor according to Penal Code §§ 46.02, 105.01, 105.05, & 105.10. A Class A misdemeanor, according to § 12.21, is a maximum punishment of $4,000 + 1 year incarceration in a government dungeon. Now, I ask you, where has the all the “Gun Pride” or “Alcohol Civil Rights” advocacy gone? With regard to the public lewdness “law” in Texas, § 21.07 only punishes dogging as a Class A misdemeanor; so as long as the consenting adults “get a room” as it were, then I (as a laymen) would assume they would not be committing an “offense” under that section.
I am truly sorry that you friend was gang-raped and that you were beaten by the APD. I would suggest you contact the Peaceful Streets Project right here in Austin and tell them your story and that of your friend, because embarrassing the Standing Army is always a good thing as far as I am concerned (think “color of law” when it comes to cops). I would caution you, however, against lumping the natural prejudices of the citizenry with the torts committed by the Standing Army whenever you equivocate them as “hate crimes.” Just as free speech has been occasionally labeled “hate speech” whenever the content of said speech is personally repugnant to an individual, affixing the adjective “hate” to anything is nearly always a precursor to censorship. You cannot advocate for your own personal liberty by simultaneously demanding that your fellow man be oppressed.
Vices are not crimes, so if anything, the issue at play here is not so much your concerns about emerging theocracies, but that of mala prohibita itself. Prostitution, gambling, and even smoking tobacco in some circumstances are punishable under §§ 43.02, 47.02, & 48.01 of the Penal Code. The punishments for these range from Class C misdemeanors to “state jail felonies.” Does this seem right to you?
Finally, you also said, “Homosexuals are not trying to impose anything on you. They just want the same inalienable rights as you do.” This seems rather nonsensical for you to say, because you already posses the natural liberty to freely associate, as do I. True, the government doesn’t recognize or respect your rights, but neither do they recognize or respect the rights of heterosexuals either (consider the list of prohibited activities I’ve already mentioned). What I don’t like are openly LGBT individuals like United States Attorney Anne Tompkins describing libertarians and other advocates of sound currency as “domestic terrorists” just because many of us want to privately issue our own currencies outside the grasp of the Federal Reserve (such as Bitcoin). Such betrayal is worthy of the Soviets, not Americans.